Herrera v. Hall et al
Filing
103
ORDER DENYING 102 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/19/2011. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CARLOS HERRERA,
12
1:08-cv-01882-LJO-BAM (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
13
vs.
14
S. LOPEZ, et al,
(ECF No. 102)
15
Defendants.
16
________________________________/
17
This action is currently set for jury trial on March 26,2012. On December 15,
18
2011, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a
19
constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525
20
(9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28
21
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,
22
490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances
23
the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand,
24
113 F.3d at 1525.
25
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court
26
will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining
27
whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of
28
success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of
-1-
the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.
1
Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious
2
allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is
3
faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court
4
cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a
5
review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate
6
his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is
7
8
9
10
11
HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
cm411
December 19, 2011
/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?