Downs v. California Board of Prison Terms et al
ORDER Denying Motion For Appointment Of Counsel (Doc. 23 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 4/7/2010. (Scrivner, E)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 GREGORY DOWNS, 10 11 vs. Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 1:09-cv-00714-SMS (PC)
U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12 CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al., (Doc. 23) 13 Defendants. 14 ________________________________/ 15 On April 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 16 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 17 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 18 represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court 19 for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 20 circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 21 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 22 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court 23 will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining 24 whether "exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of 25 success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of 26 the complexity of the legal issues involved." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 27 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional 28 -1-
1 circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has 2 made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. 3 This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the 4 proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the 5 merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that Plaintiff 6 cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 7 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is
8 HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: b742a4 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2April 7, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?