Reginald Milon Fields v. Jim McDonnel et al

Filing 9

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER Denying Request for Appointment of Counsel [Dkt. 8] by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato, (dts)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-3943-DDP (KK)

Title

Reginald Milon Fields v. Jim McDonnel, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

July 22, 2015

Kenly Kiya Kato, United States Magistrate Judge

Deb Taylor

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

Order Denying Request for Appointment of Counsel [Dkt. 8]

The court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel. ECF
Docket No. 8. In his Request, Plaintiff asks the court to appoint counsel so he may issue
summons forms to the named defendants in this action. Id. As an initial matter, the court
notes it has recommended the action be dismissed without prejudice because of Plaintiff’s
failure to file an amended complaint pursuant to prior court orders. See ECF Docket No.
6. Moreover, the court has considered the arguments proffered by Plaintiff in support of
the instant Request. As set forth below, the court does not find “exceptional
circumstances” justifying the appointment of counsel at this stage. Thus, the court hereby
DENIES without prejudice the request for appointment of counsel.
There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil rights actions.
Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). The court has no direct way
to pay appointed counsel and cannot compel an attorney to represent a plaintiff. See
Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 301-10, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 104 L. Ed. 2d 318
(1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request counsel to voluntarily
provide representation. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); see Mallard, 490 U.S. at 301-10. To
decide whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court evaluates both the likelihood
of a plaintiff’s success on the merits and plaintiff’s ability to articulate claims pro se.
Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,
1017 (9th Cir. 1991). At this juncture in the case, the court does not find that such
exceptional circumstances exist. The court assures Plaintiff that it will liberally construe
the pleadings and give Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. Los
Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-3943-DDP (KK)

Title

Reginald Milon Fields v. Jim McDonnel, et al.

CV-90 (06/04)

Date

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

July 22, 2015

Page 2 of 2