Mayfield v. Mix et al

Filing 33

ORDER Denying 31 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 3/19/12. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
DWAYNE MAYFIELD,

CASE: 1:10-cv-01091-AWI-GBC (PC)

10
Plaintiff,
11

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

vs.
12
M. MIX, et al,
13

Doc. 31

Defendants.
14 ____________________________________/
15

On March 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff

16 does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d
17 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant
18 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,
19 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the
20 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
21

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

22 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
23 “exceptional circumstances exist, the District Court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
24 the merits [and] the ability of the [Plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity
25 of the legal issues involved.” Id.
26

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if

27 it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations
28 which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with
Page 1 of 2

1 similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a
2 determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record
3 in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
4

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

5 DENIED, without prejudice.
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated:
8 7j8cce

March 19, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2