Tafilele v. Harrington et al
ORDER DENYING 24 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 10/3/2011. (Jessen, A)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ASOFA V. TAFILELE,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
KELLY HARRINGTON, et al,
(ECF No. 24)
On September 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of
counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this
action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot
require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109
S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may
request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to Section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113
F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court
will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In
determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate
both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate
his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional
circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that
he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is
not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this
early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is
likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the
Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is
HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 3, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?