Pulliam v. Lozano et al

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING 19 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge William M. Wunderlich on 1/5/2009. (Martin, S)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 JOSEPH R. PULLIAM, 12 13 vs. 14 M. LOZANO, et al., (Doc. #19) 15 Defendants. 16 ________________________________/ 17 On December 19, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 1:07-cv-0964-LJO-WMW (PC) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18 counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 19 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to 20 represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court 21 for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in 22 certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel 23 pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 24 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court

25 will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining 26 whether "exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of 27 success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of 28 the complexity of the legal issues involved." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). -1-

1

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

2 Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious 3 allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is 4 faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court 5 cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a 6 review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate 7 his claims. Id. 8 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is

9 HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: j14hj0 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2January 5, 2009 /s/ William M. Wunderlich UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE