Lopez v. Florez et al

Filing 193

ORDER DENYING 192 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/4/2013. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDREW R. LOPEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

FLOREZ, et al.,

15

1:08-cv-01975 LJO JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Doc. 192)

Defendants.

16
17

Repeatedly, and again on October 24, 2013, plaintiff has filed motions seeking the

18

appointment of counsel. As the Court has iterated again and again, 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). Only in certain exceptional circumstances may

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 will seek

26

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

27

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of

28

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
1

1
2

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Once again, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is

3

assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations

4

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. Moreover, plaintiff has

5

demonstrated his ability to represent himself adequately in this matter given the Court has

6

recently recommended that summary judgment be granted in his favor.

7
8

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11

Dated:

November 4, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2