Franklin v. United States

Filing 100

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Appointment Of Counsel (ECF No. 99 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/30/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EMERY I. FRANKLIN,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:10-cv-00142-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
(ECF No. 99)

14
15

UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

16
17
18

Plaintiff Emery I. Franklin is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) personal injury action arising from a

20

motor vehicle accident. Telephonic Pretrial Conference is set for June 13, 2014. Trial is set

21

for August 12, 2014.

22

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel on grounds

23

he lacks legal knowledge; he is pro se and indigent and has been unable to retain counsel;

24

and his case is complex and will likely involve conflicting testimony. (ECF No. 99.)

25

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand

26

v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), partially overruled on other grounds, 154

27

F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent

28

Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the
1

1

Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances

2

the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1).

3

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a reasonable method of securing and

4

compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and

5

exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district

6

court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the

7

[plaintiff] to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

8

involved.” Id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together

9

before reaching a decision on request of counsel under section 1915(d). Wilborn v.

10

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th

11

Cir. 2009).

12

The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the Plaintiff. See

13

Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (plaintiff “has not made the requisite showing of exceptional

14

circumstances for the appointment of counsel”); accord, Alvarez v. Jacquez, 415 F. App'x

15

830, 831 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff “failed to show exceptional circumstances”); Simmons v.

16

Hambly, 14 F. App'x 918, 919 (9th Cir. 2001) (same); Davis v. Yarborough, 459 F. App'x

17

601, 602 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff “did not show the ‘exceptional circumstances' required to

18

appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).”).

19

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

20

The Court cannot make a determination at this stage of the litigation that Plaintiff is likely to

21

succeed on the merits. The claims alleged do not appear to be novel or unduly complex.

22

The facts alleged to date appear straightforward.

23

Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made

24

serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional.

25

This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily.

26

The papers filed by Plaintiff in this case reflect an appreciation of the legal issues

27

and standards and an ability to express same adequately in writing. The Court does not

28

find that at present, he cannot adequately articulate his claims pro se.
2

1

Finally, it is not clear Plaintiff has exhausted diligent efforts to secure counsel.1

2

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No.

3

99) is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

15

January 30, 2014

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC _Signature- END:

16

12eob4

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

See e.g., Thornton v. Schwarzenegger, 2011 WL 90320, *3–4 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (cases cited).

3