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Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952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