Goolsby v. Carrasco et al

Filing 81

ORDER Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel 70 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/14/11. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS GOOLSBY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 Case No. 1:09-cv-01650 JLT (PC) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL vs. (Doc. 70) 14 M. CARRASCO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 _________________________________/ 17 On August 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff 18 has previously moved this Court for appointment of counsel on August 1, 2011 (Doc. 61), which was 19 denied on August 4, 2011. (Doc. 64) , on March 21, 2011 (Doc. 51) which was denied on March 24, 20 2011. (Doc. 52) and on August 12, 2010 (Doc. 34) which was denied on August 24, 2010. (Doc. 21 35) In addition, Plaintiff currently has on file a motion entitled “Motion for Appointment of 22 Advisement Counsel.” (Doc. 67) 23 Once again, the Court advises Plaintiff that he does not have a constitutional right to 24 appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and that 25 the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 26 Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). 27 However, in certain exceptional circumstances, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of 28 counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. In determining whether 1 1 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the 2 merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of 3 the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). 4 As has been stated several times before, the Court does not find the required exceptional 5 circumstances exist in this case. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well-versed in the law and 6 that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not so 7 complex that Plaintiff is unable to adequately articulate his claims. This action involves two Eighth 8 Amendment claims against one defendant. 9 compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most complex and 10 exceptional cases. Also, at this point the Court is unable to conclude that Plaintiff has a strong 11 likelihood of succeeding on the merits of his claims such that counsel is warranted. 12 13 Without a reasonable method of securing and Accordingly, for all the reasons set forth above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s August 22, 2011 motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 70) is DENIED. 14 Plaintiff is admonished that he SHALL NOT again file a motion for appointment of counsel 15 unless he has good faith grounds to believe that there has been a substantive change in the litigation 16 that would justify appointment of counsel as that process is described herein. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: September 14, 2011 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?