Jacobs v. Sullivan et al

Filing 130

ORDER Denying 128 Motion to Appoint Counsel for Limited Purpose signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 08/13/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE E. JACOBS, IV,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
W.J. SULLIVAN, et al.,

1:05-cv-01625 GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FOR
LIMITED PURPOSE
(Document# 128)

Defendant.

16
17

On August 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff

18

does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113

19

F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff

20

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern

21

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain

22

exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

23

section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

24

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek

25

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

26

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of

27

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

28

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
1

1

Plaintiff requests counsel for the limited purpose of assisting him with a response to the

2

court’s order to show cause of July 7, 2014.1 Plaintiff argues that he cannot afford to retain an

3

attorney, he is not knowledgeable about bankruptcy law or procedure, and he has absolutely no

4

knowledge of stays in bankruptcy cases or how such a saw affects his § 1983 case. Plaintiff also

5

argues that he has very limited access to the law library because he is confined in the solitary

6

confinement unit, and he does not have the ability or opportunity to investigate claims, legal

7

theories, or case law. Plaintiff argues that bankruptcy law and procedure are complex and are not

8

something that pro se prisoner litigants face on a regular basis.

9

Plaintiff’s arguments are not persuasive. The facts that he is unable to afford counsel and

10

that his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate do not make Plaintiff’s case

11

exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases daily.

12

Plaintiff argues that he lacks knowledge about bankruptcy law and procedure. However,

13

the court’s order to show cause only requires Plaintiff to consider Defendants’ arguments and

14

assertions in their status report filed on June 30, 2014. Defendants have argued that this case

15

should proceed to trial without defendant Crotty because further delay will result in fading

16

memories, Defendants retiring and moving out of state, and loss of evidence. Defendants have

17

asserted that Plaintiff has not filed a claim with the bankruptcy court, and therefore any claims for

18

money damages Plaintiff had against defendant Crotty will be discharged with the bankruptcy.

19

To respond to the court’s order to show cause, Plaintiff needs to decide whether this case should

20

proceed to trial without further delay, and if so, whether his case against defendant Crotty should

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

be stayed or dismissed. Based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that
Plaintiff cannot adequately consider these choices.
///
1

On June 23, 2011, the court stayed this action as to defendant Crotty pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
362(a), pending resolution of defendant Crotty’s bankruptcy proceeding. (Doc. 58.) On June 30, 2014,
Defendants filed a status report asserting that defendant Crotty’s bankruptcy will continue until at least
May 2016. (Doc. 126.) Defendants argue that it does not appear efficient to wait for trial until after the
bankruptcy ends because, and Defendants assert that as a potential creditor, Plaintiff did not file a claim
with the bankruptcy court, such that any claim for money damages Plaintiff had against Crotty are or will
be discharged. Id. On July 7, 2014, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this
case should not proceed to trial, either continuing to stay the case against defendant Crotty under 11
U.S.C. § 362(a), or dismissing defendant Crotty from this action. (Doc. 127.)
2

1

While the court has found that Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim against defendant

2

Crotty for the violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment, this finding is not a

3

determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and at this juncture the court cannot

4

find that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits against defendant Crotty. Thus, the court does

5

not find the required exceptional circumstances, and Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied.

6

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for the

7

appointment of counsel for the limited purpose of responding to the court’s order to show cause is

8

DENIED.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 13, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3