Pulliam v. Lozano et al

Filing 88

ORDER Denying Motion For Appointment Of Counsel (ECF No. 87 ), Twenty-One Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/17/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH R. PULLIAM,

1:07-cv-0964-LJO-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

13

v.

14

M. LOZANO, et al.,
(ECF No.87)

15

Defendants.
TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

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 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a
19
motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 87.)
20
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand
21
v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney
22
to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District
23
Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989).
24
In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance
25
of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a
26
reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer
27
counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.
28
-1-

In determining whether

1

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of

2

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

3

of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations

4

omitted).

5

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

6

Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made

7

serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional.

8

This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Based on a review of the record in this

9

case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED,

10
11

without prejudice.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:
il0i0d

September 17, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-