White v. Patel et al
ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 44 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/24/14. (Hellings, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1:11-cv-00047 AWI GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
PATEL, et al.,
On April 23, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff
does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113
F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain
exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to
section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, plaintiff argues that he is housed in an outpatient facility for mentally
disturbed persons and has no reasonable way to obtain counsel. This does not make plaintiff’s
case exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases daily. While the court has found that
plaintiff states cognizable claims for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment, this
finding is not a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits and at this juncture,
the court cannot find that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s medical claims do
not appear complex, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that
plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Thus, the court does not find the required
exceptional circumstances, and plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of
the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 24, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?