Thompson v. The State of California et al
ORDER Denying 102 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/31/13. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RAHN G. THOMPSON,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
On October 28, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland,
113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent
plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain
exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to
section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood 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. A review of the record in
this case shows that plaintiff is responsive, adequately communicates, and is able to articulate his
claims. The legal issues in this case B whether defendants failed to protect plaintiff, used
excessive force, and subjected plaintiff to adverse conditions of confinement B are not complex,
and this court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this stage in the proceedings,
the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Id.
Therefore, Plaintiff=s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later
stage of the proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 31, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?