Cintron v. Director, California Department of Corrections et al
ORDER DENYING 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/7/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 ESIAS CINTRON,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
14 A. DUENAS, et al.,
(ECF No. 10)
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.)
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).
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 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
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.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appointment Counsel is DENIED,
12 without prejudice.
15 IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 7, 2011
Michael J. Seng
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?