Marquez v. Quintero et al

Filing 23

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/25/12. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ANTHONY MARQUEZ,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01965-BAM PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
(ECF No. 20)

12

I. QUINTERO, et al.,

13

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Anthony Marquez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

16

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion

17

for an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and also requested

18

appointment of counsel.1 (ECF No. 20.)

19

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require

20

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States District Court for

21

the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). In certain

22

exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28

23

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). Without a reasonable

24

method of securing and compensating counsel, this court will seek volunteer counsel only in the

25

most serious and exceptional cases.

26

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. See Rand,

27
28

1

Plaintiff was granted an extension of time in an order issued on September 18, 2012. (ECF No. 21.)

1

1

113 F.3d at 1525. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has

2

made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional.

3

This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further a review of the record in this action does

4

not demonstrate that Plaintiff is unable to adequately articulate his claims, nor does it appear that

5

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of this action as defendants allege he did not exhaust his

6

administrative remedies. Therefore, plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel shall be

7

denied.

8
9

In accordance with the above, plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
cm411

October 25, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2