Branch v. Grannis, et al.,
Filing
134
ORDER denying 133 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/24/2014. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
LOUIS BRANCH,
10
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
v.
1:08-cv-01655 AWI GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Document# 133)
N. GRANNIS,
Defendant.
14
15
On July 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff
16
does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113
17
F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff
18
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern
19
District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain
20
exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to
21
section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
22
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
23
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
24
Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
25
of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
26
complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
27
28
In the present case, Plaintiff argues that he is unable to afford counsel and his
imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate.
1
This does not make Plaintiff’s case
1
exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases daily. Moreover, while the court has found
2
that Plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable claims, this finding is not a determination that Plaintiff
3
is likely to succeed on the merits and at this juncture, the court cannot find that Plaintiff is likely
4
to succeed on the merits.
5
Plaintiff also argues that he has been prejudiced by Defendants’ suppression of his rights
6
to discovery. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have responded to his discovery requests with
7
boilerplate objections and invalid privilege claims, and filed a frivolous opposition to Plaintiff’s
8
motion to compel. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is now pending before the court and will be
9
resolved in due time. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s claim of prejudice in
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the discovery process is premature.
Plaintiff’s case proceeds on only two claims:
retaliation under the First Amendment, and (2) against defendants Umphenour, Szalai, and
Alvarez for failure to protect Plaintiff under the Eighth Amendment.
policy and due process violations. This action is not proceeding on those claims, and therefore
Plaintiff’s arguments about success on those claims are not relevant. While Plaintiff’s retaliation
and failure to protect claims may be challenging, the court finds, based on a review of the record
and Plaintiff’s present motion, that Plaintiff appears well-informed and able to adequately
articulate his claims. Thus, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances, and
Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the
proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 24, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
In his motion for
appointment of counsel, Plaintiff discusses his likelihood of success on claims based on prison
25
26
(1) against defendant Umphenour for
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?