Tafilele v. Harrington et al

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING 24 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 10/3/2011. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ASOFA V. TAFILELE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 1:10-cv-01493-LJO-GBC (PC) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. KELLY HARRINGTON, et al, (ECF No. 24) Defendants. 15 16 17 ________________________________/ On September 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of 18 counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this 19 action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot 20 require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. 21 United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 22 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may 23 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to Section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 24 F.3d at 1525. 25 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court 26 will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In 27 determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate 28 both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate -1- 1 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal 2 quotation marks and citations omitted). In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional 3 4 circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that 5 he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is 6 not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this 7 early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is 8 likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the 9 Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is 10 11 HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: 1j0bbc October 3, 2011 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?