Hawthorne v. Mendoza-Power et al
Filing
130
ORDER DENYING 121 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/12/2012. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RALPH KELLY HAWTHORNE, JR.,
1:07-cv-01101-LJO-DLB (PC)
12
Plaintiff,
13
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
v.
14
KATHY MENDOZA-POWER, et al,
( #121)
15
16
17
Defendants.
________________________________/
On September 21, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
18
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 (1989). However, in certain exceptional
22
circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section
23
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
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
27
of 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
2
3
In the present case, Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis. Even if Plaintiff were,
the Court cannot make a determination of the likelihood of success on the merits.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
4
DENIED, without prejudice.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated:
77e0d6
December 12, 2012
/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
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?