Gunn v. Tilton et al
Filing
123
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 121 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/08/2013. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEVIN GUNN,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES TILTON, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:08-cv-01038-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
[ECF No. 121]
Plaintiff Kevin Gunn is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff
20
does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d
21
1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to
22
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490
23
U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the
24
voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
25
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
26
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
27
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the
28
1
1
merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the
2
legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
3
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it
4
assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if
5
proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. Plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment
6
claim against two defendants for using excessive force. The legal issues present in this action are not
7
complex, and Plaintiff has articulated his claims numerous times in pleadings filed in the action. The
8
Court does not find exceptional circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel in this case.
9
10
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated:
October 8, 2013
_
_
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?