Woodall v. State of California et al

Filing 133

ORDER DENYING 132 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/7/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NICK WOODALL,

12

1:08-cv-01948-LJO-DLB (PC)

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

13

v.

14

A. RAYGOSA,
(MOTION #132)

15

Defendant.

16

________________________________/

17

On May 3, 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

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 § 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d

23

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.

2

Based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot

3

adequately articulate his claims or represent himself in this action. Id. Plaintiff contends that he

4

is unable to conduct legal research at the law library to respond to Defendant’s motions in limine

5

because of various issues with escort to the law library and access. While the Court is cognizant

6

of these difficulties, appointment of counsel is not warranted. If Plaintiff requires more time to

7

file an opposition, he may file a motion for extension of time. The Court notes that this action is

8

set for jury trial before United States District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill on May 22, 2012.

9

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

10

DENIED, without prejudice.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:
77e0d6

May 7, 2012

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-