Young v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel or Referral to Pro Bono Program signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/2/2009. (Figueroa, O)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ____________________________________/ 17 On February 10, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of 18 counsel or referral to a pro bono program. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to 19 appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and 20 the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 21 Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 22 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may 23 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 24 1525. The court does not refer parties directly to any pro bono program. 25 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court 26 will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining 27 whether "exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood 28 -1vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants. HOWARD YOUNG, Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL OR REFERRAL TO PRO BONO PROGRAM ( Doc. #18) 1:07-cv-01121-GSA (PC) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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 or referral to a pro bono program is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 220hhe

April 2, 2009

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-