Samuels v. Ahlin et al
Filing
52
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 51 Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1-19/17. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
DOUGAL SAMUELS,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
v.
1:10-cv-00585-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO
COUNSEL
(ECF NO. 51)
PAM AHLIN, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
19
Dougal Samuels (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
20
in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed
21
a request for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 51).
22
According to Plaintiff, he needs counsel appointed because this case is complex, because
23
this case will require considerable discovery, because there will be conflicting testimony, and
24
because he is unable to investigate the facts of this case due to his detention.
25
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
26
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952
27
(9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28
28
U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,
1
1
490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances
2
the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand,
3
113 F.3d at 1525.
4
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek
5
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.
In determining whether
6
Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
7
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
8
complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
9
The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. At this early stage in
10
the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the
11
merits. While at the screening stage Plaintiff’s complaint was found to state a claim (ECF Nos. 22,
12
24, & 41), there is currently a pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 45). Moreover, based on the
13
record in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims and respond to
14
court orders. Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing the motion for appointment
15
of pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.
16
17
18
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
Dated:
January 19, 2017
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?