Samuels v. Ahlin et al

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/25/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DOUGAL SAMUELS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
PAM AHLIN, et al.,

1:10-cv-00585-GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Document# 27)

Defendants.

16
17

On November 20, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

18

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

19

113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent

20

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

21

Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain

22

exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

23

section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

24

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek

25

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

In determining whether

26

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of

27

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

28

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
1

1

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this

2

early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to

3

succeed on the merits. Plaintiff has submitted a second amended complaint with his service

4

documents, and the second amended complaint awaits screening by the court. (Docs. 25, 26.)

5

Until the second amended complaint is screened and the court finds that Plaintiff states

6

cognizable claims, service of process shall not be initiated upon the defendants.

7

concerning Plaintiff’s claim for denial of safe conditions is not complex. Plaintiff argues that he

8
9
10
11

The law

cannot afford counsel, is not knowledgeable about the law, and has been depending on a jailhouse
lawyer for assistance. While these conditions make litigation challenging, they do not amount to
exceptional circumstances under the law. The court is faced with similar cases daily. Therefore,
Plaintiff=s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the
proceedings.

12
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
13
DENIED, without prejudice.
14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 25, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2