Marsh v. Vegianelli et al
ORDER DENYING 59 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/8/2012. (Marrujo, C)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LAWRENCE L. MARSH,
1:09-cv-001243 GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
M. VEGIANELLI, et al.,
On March 1, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff
does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113
F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain
exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to
section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of 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.
Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious
allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court
is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court
cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a
review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately
articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 8, 2012
/s/ Gary S. Austin
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?