Carter v. Fernandez et al

Filing 94

ORDER DENYING 90 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/26/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVAN RAY CARTER, Jr., 12 1:08-cv-01841-AWI-DLB-(PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 vs. 14 A. FERNANDEZ, et al., (MOTION #90) 15 Defendants. 16 ________________________________/ 17 On June 17, 2011, 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 19 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern 21 District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the 22 court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 23 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 27 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 28 complexity 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. Even 2 if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations 3 which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with 4 similar cases almost daily. Further, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely 5 to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find 6 that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 7 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 8 DENIED, without prejudice. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: 77e0d6 August 26, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?