Automated Summary
Key Facts
Kevin Hagan, a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed a renewed motion for appointment of pro bono counsel (ECF No. 94). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the motion without prejudice on October 2, 2025, noting there were no changed circumstances warranting reconsideration of four prior denials. The court emphasized that no constitutional right to appointed counsel exists in § 1983 actions.
Issues
- Whether there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the court's request for voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1), requiring evaluation of both likelihood of success on the merits and ability to articulate claims pro se in light of legal complexity.
- Whether the plaintiff has alleged any change in circumstances that warrant reconsideration of prior four orders denying motions for appointment of counsel, given that the plaintiff's current motion does not set forth any changed circumstances or reasons to reconsider that order.
- Whether a state prisoner has a constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and whether the court can require an attorney to represent the plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
Holdings
The court denied Plaintiff Kevin Hagan's renewed motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice, finding no constitutional right to appointed counsel in § 1983 actions and noting Plaintiff failed to allege any changed circumstances warranting reconsideration of prior denials.
Legal Principles
- A finding of exceptional circumstances for requesting voluntary counsel requires evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.
- The court held there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil rights actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court cannot require an attorney to represent a plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), though in exceptional circumstances the Court may request voluntary assistance of counsel.
Precedent Name
- Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
- Wilborn v. Escalderon
- Rand v. Rowland
Cited Statute
- 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)
- Civil Rights Act of 1871
Passage Text
- However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1).
- IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's renewed motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 94) is DENIED without prejudice.
- A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both 'the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.'