Hunter v. Attorney General State of California et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING 14 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/16/2010. (Jessen, A)

(PC)Hunter v. Attorney General State of California et al

Doc. 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LEROY DEWITT HUNTER, 12 13 vs. Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 1:09-cv-01556-MJS (PC) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., (ECF No. 14) 15 Defendants. 16 ________________________________/ 17 On July 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 18 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 19 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent 20 plaintiff 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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). In certain exceptional 22 circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 23 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a reasonable method of securing and 24 compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and 25 exceptional cases. In determining whether "exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must 26 evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate 27 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Id. (internal quotation 28 -1Dockets.Justia.com

1 marks and citations omitted). 2 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if

3 it is 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. This Court is faced with 5 similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a 6 determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Finally, based on a review of the 7 record in this case, the court has no reason to believe that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his 8 claims. Id. 9 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel [ECF No. 14]

10 is DENIED. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: ci4d6 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2July 16, 2010 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Michael J. Seng