Gonzales v. Cortez et al

Filing 57

ORDER DENYING 52 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/7/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL GONZALES, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00393-LJO-MJS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. (ECF NO. 52) R. CORTEZ, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiff Michael Gonzales is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (partially overruled en banc on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1998)), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 28 1 1 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In 2 determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate 3 both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate 4 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (Internal 5 quotation marks and citations omitted.) 6 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional 7 circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that 8 he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is 9 not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early 10 stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to 11 succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does 12 not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 13 14 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 52) is DENIED, without prejudice. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 7, 2014 /s/ 18 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 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?