Cintron v. Director, California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/7/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESIAS CINTRON, 12 1:11-cv-000496-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 vs. 14 A. DUENAS, et al., (ECF No. 10) 15 Defendants. 16 ________________________________/ 17 Plaintiff Esias Cintron (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion 19 seeking the appointment of counsel. (Mot., ECF No. 10.) 20 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand 21 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney 22 to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District 23 Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). 24 In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance 25 of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a 26 reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer 27 counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 28 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of -1- 1 success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light 2 of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations 3 omitted). 4 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 5 Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made 6 serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. 7 This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the 8 proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on 9 the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that 10 Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 11 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appointment Counsel is DENIED, 12 without prejudice. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: ci4d6 17 September 7, 2011 Michael J. Seng /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?