Toni Levingston v. Bondoc et al

Filing 14

ORDER Denying Motions for Appointment of Counsel 12 , 13 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/14/11. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TONI LEVINGSTON, Case No. 1:11-cv-0309-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 vs. 14 BONDOC, et al., (ECF Nos. 12 & 13) Defendants. 15 16 ________________________________/ 17 On May 12, 2011 and May 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed Motions seeking the appointment 18 of counsel. 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. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). 23 In certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of 24 counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a 25 reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer 26 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 success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light -1- 1 of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations 2 omitted). 3 In support of her Motions, Plaintiff contends that he has no legal training and is not 4 knowledgeable about how to litigate. The Court does not find that these circumstances 5 constitute the required exceptional circumstances. This Court is faced with similar cases 6 filed by similarly untrained prisoners almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the 7 proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on 8 the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that 9 plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 10 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motions for the appointment of counsel are 11 HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: ci4d6 16 June 14, 2011 Michael J. Seng /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?