Ahdom v. Lopez et al

Filing 65

ORDER DENYING 60 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/24/2013. (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

BILAL AHDOM,

12

1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM-(PC)

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

13

vs.

14

S. LOPEZ, et al.,
(ECF No. 60)

15

Defendants.

16

________________________________/

17

On September 17, 2012, Plaintiff Bilal Ahdom (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding

18

pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 47.) On

19

September 19, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, finding that exceptional circumstances

20

did not exist to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 50.) On January 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed a second

21

motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 60.)

22

As previously explained, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed

23

counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court

24

cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v.

25

United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814,

26

1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary

27

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

28

In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate
-1-

1

both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his

2

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation

3

marks and citations omitted).

4

The Court finds that exceptional circumstances do no exist in this matter. Although

5

Plaintiff is concerned that there are multiple defendants represented by multiple attorneys, this

6

does not render his case exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily.

7

Moreover, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is

8

likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does

9

not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

10

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s second motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

11

DENIED without prejudice.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated:
10c20k

January 24, 2013

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-