Allen v. Meyer et al

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 5/23/2011. (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

KELVIN ALLEN,

1:09-cv-00729-GBC (PC)

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

13

v.

14

MEYER, et al.,
(ECF No. 27)

15
16

Defendants.
________________________________/

17

ORDER

18

Plaintiff Kelvin Allen (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

19

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court

20

is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel filed May 16, 2011. (ECF No. 27.) The

21

United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require

22

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States

23

District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain

24

exceptional circumstances, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

25

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir.

26

1997). Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, this Court

27

will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

28

Plaintiff’s claims in this case involve conditions of confinement in violation of the
-1-

1

Eighth Amendment. Having reviewed the record, the Court does not find that there are

2

exceptional circumstances. The Court acknowledges, as Plaintiff contends in his

3

instant Motion, that he is not well versed in the law, that he has a low reading level and

4

is dyslexic. However, the Court also acknowledges that this is not a complex case, nor

5

an extraordinary case, and that Plaintiff has, up to this point, been adequately

6

expressing his claims. At present, all that is required of Plaintiff is an opposition to

7

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, in which Defendants have laid out the applicable legal

8

standards. Again, Plaintiff’s claims in this case are not extraordinary; this Court is faced

9

with similar cases almost daily. Plaintiff’s filings thus far have shown that he is a

10

capable advocate. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot

11

make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Request for Counsel is HEREBY DENIED

12
13

without prejudice.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated:
1j0bbc

May 23, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-