Barrow v. California Medical Facility, Corcoran

Filing 12

ORDER denying 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/19/2010. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
(PC) Barrow v. California Medical Facility, Corcoran Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 RAEKUBIAN A. BARROW, 12 13 vs. Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 1:10-cv-00154-MJS (PC) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 W A R D E N CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, CORCORAN, ( ECF No. 11) 15 Defendants. 16 ________________________________/ 17 On July 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 18 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, 19 Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court cannot require an 20 attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States 21 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 IS.Ct. 1814, 1816 22 (1989). 23 In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance 24 of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a 25 reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer 26 counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 27 "exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of 28 1 success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light 2 of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations 3 omitted). 4 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 5 Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made 6 serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. 7 This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the 8 proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on 9 the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that 10 Plaintiff is unable to adequately articulate his claims. Id. 11 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel [ECF 12 No. 11] is DENIED. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: ci4d6 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2July 19, 2010 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Michael J. Seng

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?