Taylor v. Ohannesson et al

Filing 41

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Second Motion for Appointment of COunsel 40 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/13/14: Motion is DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

1:11-cv-00538 LJO SAB (PC)

TRACY TAYLOR,

12

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF
SECOND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL

v.

14

SHAY OHANNESSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

(ECF No. 40)

16
On January 9, 2014, plaintiff filed a second motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

17
18

Previously, on February 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel.

19

Plaintiff’s motion was denied on February 25, 2013, as exceptional circumstances to justify the

20

appointment of counsel was not present.
As with Plaintiff’s first motion for counsel, exceptional circumstances are still not present

21
22

to warrant appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed

23

counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court

24

cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v.

25

United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814,

26

1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary

27

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

28

///
1

1

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek

2

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

3

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success

4

of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

5

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

6

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even

7

if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations

8

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. Plaintiff is proceeding

9

against Defendants Ohanneson, Duran, and Smith, for excessive force in violation of the Eight

10

Amendment. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, the court has reviewed

11

the record and does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

12
13

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.

14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16

Dated:

January 13, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2