Williams v. Anderson
Filing
13
ORDER DENYING 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel and 11 Motion for Early Settlement signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 10/13/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SYLESTER WILLIAMS,
12
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01250-LJO-GBC (PC)
Plaintiff,
13
14
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND
MOTION FOR EARLY SETTLEMENT
v.
R. ANDERSON,
15
Defendant.
(Doc. 11)
/
16
17
On August 17, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel and
18
requested to be placed in an “early settlement program.” (Doc 11). Plaintiff does not have a
19
constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525
20
(9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28
21
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,
22
490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances
23
the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand,
24
113 F.3d at 1525.
25
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
26
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
27
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
28
of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
-1-
1
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
2
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even
3
if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations
4
which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with
5
similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a
6
determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record
7
in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
8
With regards to Plaintiff’s request to be placed in an early settlement program, the Court
9
must first screen the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and once the case is screened and
10
defendants are served notice of the cognizable claims against them, Plaintiff can then contact
11
defendants to determine if they desire to settle the action.
12
13
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel and request
for placement in an early settlement program is HEREBY DENIED.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
Dated:
0jh02o
October 13, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
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?