Colbert v. Chavez et al
Filing
87
ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, Plaintiff's Second 86 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 07/11/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GEORGE K. COLBERT,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
P. CHAVEZ, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 86]
Plaintiff George K. Colbert is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for the appointment of counsel,
20
filed July 7, 2016. (ECF No. 86.) There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,
21
Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require any attorney to
22
represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the
23
Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances
24
the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113
25
F.3d at 1525.
26
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
27
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
28
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the
1
1
merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the
2
legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
3
In the present case, the Court finds that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional
4
circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th
5
Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). While counsel may be able to
6
cross-examine witnesses at trial, so long as a pro se litigant, like Plaintiff in this case, is able to
7
“articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances”
8
which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no
9
abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel
10
despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better-particular in the realms of discovery and
11
the security of expert testimony.”) Indeed, any pro se litigant “would be better served with the
12
assistance of counsel.” Id.
13
In the present case, the Court finds that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional
14
circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th
15
Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding against
16
Defendants Ramirez and Flores for excessive force and retaliation and against Defendant Farnsworth
17
for failure to protect, and Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate the factual and legal basis
18
for his arguments and has effectively litigated this case to date. While a pro se litigant may be better
19
served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is
20
able to “articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional
21
circumstances” which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113
22
F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied
23
appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better-particularly in the
24
realm of discovery and the securing of expert testimony.”) In addition, circumstances common to
25
most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish
26
exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Based on
27
the information presently before the Court, it is apparent that Plaintiff has the competence necessary to
28
pursue this case to trial. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s arguments do not present exceptional
2
1
circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff second
2
motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice.
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated:
7
July 11, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?