Taylor v. Ohannesson et al

Filing 82

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Fourth Motion For Appointment Of Counsel (ECF No. 79 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/17/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TRACY TAYLOR,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
SHAYE O’HANNESON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00538-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
FOURTH MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 79]

Plaintiff Tracy Taylor is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 79.)

19
20

Plaintiff has previously requested counsel on three separate occasions, all of which were denied. (ECF

21

Nos. 25, 26, 40, 41, 43, 45.)
As Plaintiff has previously been advised, there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in

22
23

this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any

24

attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District

25

Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional

26

circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section

27

1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

28

///
1

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

1
2

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

3

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the

4

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

5

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

6

In the present case, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find the

7

required exceptional circumstances. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell v.

8

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of excessive force and

9

the legal issues present in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his

10

arguments in his various filings in this action. Plaintiff’s claim that he is unable to afford legal and

11

counsel and he has been granted in forma pauper status, does not alone entitled him to appointment

12

counsel. In addition, Plaintiff’s claim of limited of access to law library does not warrant exceptional

13

circumstances.
While a pro se litigant may be better serve d with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se

14
15

litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative

16

complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of

17

counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28

18

U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner

19

“may well have fared better-particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert

20

testimony.”) Accordingly, Plaintiff motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:

24

March 17, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2