Vasquez v. Yu

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING 21 MOTION to APPOINT COUNSEL filed by Vincent Vasquez, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/26/2012. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 VINCENT VASQUEZ, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 1:10-cv-02013-LJO-GSA-PC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL vs. DR. J. YU, ( #21) 14 Defendant. 15 ________________________________/ 16 On January 20, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of 17 counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand 18 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to 19 represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court 20 for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, 21 in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel 22 pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 23 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court 24 will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining 25 whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood 26 of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light 27 of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations 28 omitted). -1- 1 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional 2 circumstances. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has 3 made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not 4 exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in 5 the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the 6 merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff 7 cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 8 9 10 11 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 220hhe January 26, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?