Pulliam v. Lozano et al

Filing 108

ORDER Denying Motion For Appointmnet Of Counsel (ECF No. 105 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/24/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH R. PULLIAM,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:07-cv-964-MJS

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
M. LOZANO, et al.,

ECF No. 105

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Joseph R. Pulliam (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a
19 motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 105.)
20

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,

21 Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an
22 attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United
23 States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).
24

In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary

25 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1).

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

26 However, without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the
27 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In
28 determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate

1

1 both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate
2 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal
3 quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional

4

5 circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that
6 he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is
7 not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, based on
8 a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot
9 adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is

10

11 DENIED, without prejudice.
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:

September 24, 2013

/s/

17

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC _Signature- END:

18

Michael J. Seng

il0i0dj70h0c

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2