Marti v. Padilla, et al
ORDER Denying 230 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 01/19/2012. (Flores, E)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALEX LAMOTA MARTI,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
F. PADILLA, et al,
On January 11, 2012, 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).
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. This court is
faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court
cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a
review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate
his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is
HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 19, 2012
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?