Thompson v. The State of California et al

Filing 103

ORDER Denying 102 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/31/13. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAHN G. THOMPSON, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA (PC) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Document# 102) Defendant. 16 17 On October 28, 2013, 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. Rowland, 19 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent 20 plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the 21 Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain 22 exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 23 section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 24 25 26 27 28 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). 1 1 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 2 if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations 3 which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. A review of the record in 4 this case shows that plaintiff is responsive, adequately communicates, and is able to articulate his 5 claims. The legal issues in this case B whether defendants failed to protect plaintiff, used 6 7 8 9 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. 10 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 11 DENIED, without prejudice. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 31, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?