Buchanan v. Santos et al
Filing
76
ORDER Denying Motion For Appointment Of Counsel (# 72 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/26/2012. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WHITTIER BUCHANAN,
12
1:08-cv-01174-AWI-GSA (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
13
vs.
14
A. SANTOS, et al.,
( #72)
15
Defendants.
16
________________________________/
17
On July 19, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff
18
does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d
19
1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant
20
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of
21
Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional
22
circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section
23
1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
24
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
25
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
26
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
27
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity
28
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. Plaintiff
2
argues that because he is incarcerated, unable to afford counsel, and has health concerns, his case
3
is exceptional. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has
4
made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, plaintiff’s described
5
disabilities do not make his case exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily.
6
Moreover, this case proceeds on an excessive force claim against only one defendant and does not
7
involve complex law. Further, the court does not find it likely that plaintiff will succeed on the
8
merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot
9
adequately articulate his claims. Id.
10
11
12
13
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
220hhe
July 26, 2012
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
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?