Rodgers v. Lopez et al
ORDER Denying 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 04/26/2012. (Flores, E)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
R. LOPEZ, et al.,
(ECF No. 21)
Plaintiff Synrico Rodgers (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion
seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 21.)
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand
v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney
to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District
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
of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a
reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer
counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of
In determining whether
success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light
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.
Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made
serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional.
This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the
proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on
the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that
Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 26, 2012
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?