Smith v. Rios Jr., et al

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/1/2010. (Sant Agata, S)

(PC) Smith v. Rios Jr., et al

Doc. 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NATHAN SMITH, 12 13 vs. 14 H. A. RIOS, JR. et al., 15 Defendant(s). (ECF No. 18) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 1:10-cv-1554-AW I-MJS (PC) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16 ________________________________/ 17 On September 20, 2010, Plaintiff Nathan Smith filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel.

18 (ECF No. 18.) 19 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand

20 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney 21 to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District 22 Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. I296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). 23 In certain exceptional circumstances, the Court may request the voluntary

24 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, 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 28 -1-

Dockets.Justia.com

1 success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light 2 of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations 3 omitted). 4 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

5 Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made 6 serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. 7 This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the 8 proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on 9 the merits. In fact, Plaintiff has filed relevant motions that are well-thought out and 10 reasoned thus far in this case. Based on a review of the record in this case, the Court 11 does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 12 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel is HEREBY

13 DENIED. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: ci4d6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2October 1, 2010 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Michael J. Seng