White v. Patel et al
Filing
21
ORDER Denying 20 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/30/13. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JEROME WHITE,
12
13
14
1:11-cv-00047-AWI-GSA (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
vs.
PATEL, et al.,
(DOCUMENT #20)
15
Defendants.
16
________________________________/
17
On May 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff
18
does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d
19
1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant
20
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of
21
Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional
22
circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section
23
1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
24
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
25
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
26
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
27
of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
28
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
-1-
1
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this
2
stage of the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed
3
on the merits. While the Marshal has been ordered to serve process, none of the defendants has
4
been served or made an appearance. Based on the record in this case, the court does not find that
5
plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Further, the legal issue in this case B whether
6
defendants failed to provide adequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment B is not complex,
7
and this court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Therefore, plaintiff=s motion shall be denied
8
without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
9
10
11
12
13
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is
HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
220hhe
May 30, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?