Harrison v. Adams, et al

Filing 103

ORDER Denying 101 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 03/26/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL D. HARRISON,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

1:08-cv-01065-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
T. MOORE, et al.,

(ECF No. 101)
15
16

Defendants.
________________________________/

17

Plaintiff Michael D. Harrison (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

18

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion

19

seeking the appointment of counsel. (Mot., ECF No. 101.)

20

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand

21

v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney

22

to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District

23

Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989).

24

In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance

25

of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a

26

reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer

27

counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

28

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of
-1-

In determining whether

1

success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light

2

of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations

3

omitted).

4

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

5

Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made

6

serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional.

7

This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the

8

proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on

9

the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that

10

Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED,

11
12

without prejudice.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:
92b0h

March 26, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-