Harrison v. Adams, et al
Filing
82
ORDER Denying 81 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/14/2011. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MICHAEL D. HARRISON,
Plaintiff,
12
13
1:08-cv-01065-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
v.
14 D. ADAMS, et al,
(ECF No. 81)
15
Defendants.
16 ________________________________/
17
Plaintiff Michael D. Harrison (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in
18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed
19 a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (Mot., ECF No. 81.)
20
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,
21 Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an
22 attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United
23 States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct.
24 1814, 1816 (1989).
25
In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary
26 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
27 However, without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the
28 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In
-1-
1 determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate
2 both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate
3 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal
4 quotation marks and citations omitted).
5
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional
6 circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that
7 he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is
8 not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this
9 early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is
10 likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the
11 Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
12
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appointment Counsel is DENIED,
13 without prejudice.
14
15 IT IS SO ORDERED.
16 Dated:
ci4d6
17
October 14, 2011
Michael J. Seng
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?