Carter v. Butler et al

Filing 59

ORDER DENYING 58 Motion for Appointment of Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/12/2009. (Bradley, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vs. S. BUTLER, et al., ( #58) Defendants. ________________________________/ On November 9, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether "exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). -1DESHA M. CARTER, Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 1:05-cv-01057 LJO DLB (PC) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. Furthermore, the appointment of counsel at this late stage in the action would not help the proceedings go forward more efficiently and effectively , but would most likely result in further unnecessary delay. Plaintiff's difficulties in proceeding pro se while incarcerated are not more extraordinary than the difficulties facing other prisoner litigants. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 77e0d6

November 12, 2009

/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-