Todd v. CA Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, et al.
Filing
114
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Appointment Of Counsel (ECF No. 112 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/27/2014. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL ANDRE TODD,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY L. HEDGPETH, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:08-cv-01504-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 112]
Plaintiff Michael Andre Todd is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed March 21,
20
2014. Plaintiff requests counsel based on his lack of income, limited access to the law library, limited
21
training in the law and education, and because the issues are complex. Plaintiff’s motion for
22
appointment of counsel must be denied.
23
The record in this case demonstrates sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to articulate
24
the claims and proceed with this action. The mere fact that Plaintiff is proceeding to trial pro se is not
25
a basis to appoint counsel. After considering Plaintiff’s incarceration, limited education, and lack of
26
legal training, as referenced in his motion, the Court does not find that exceptional circumstances exist
27
for appointment of counsel in this case. Plaintiff is proceeding to trial on a claim of deliberate
28
indifference to a serious medical need against Defendants Lopez and Hedgpeth, and Plaintiff has
1
1
failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel in this instance as
2
Plaintiff’s situation is similar to that of other incarcerated pro se plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
3
motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
4
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 27, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
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?