Tuggle v. Olsen et al

Filing 13

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 12 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/01/2011. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 STEVEN RAMON TUGGLE, 10 Plaintiff, 11 CASE NO. 1:10-cv–01420-LJO-BAM PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. (ECF No. 12) 12 13 OLSEN, et al., Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Steven Ramon Tuggle is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 16 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion 17 for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to 18 appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the 19 court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard 20 v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 21 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary 22 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 23 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 24 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 25 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 26 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 27 of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 28 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if 1 1 it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations 2 which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with 3 similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a 4 determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record 5 in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 6 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 7 DENIED, without prejudice. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: cm411 November 1, 2011 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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?