McDaniel v. Chavez et al

Filing 50

ORDER DENYING 47 Motion to Appoint Counsel Pro Bono Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/9/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT MCDANIEL,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

1:10-cv-01077-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO COUNSEL
(ECF NO. 47)

FRANK X. CHAVEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On December 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF

18

No. 47). Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

23

pursuant to 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. Further, based on a review of the record in this case, while Plaintiff may

4

have difficulty in articulating his claims well, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot

5

adequately articulate his claims. Id.

6
7

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel is
HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 9, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2