Williams v. Ronquillo et al

Filing 62

ORDER DENYING 61 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/18/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GERRY WILLIAMS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
J. RONQUILLO, et al.,

1:11-cv-00874-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 61)

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Gerry Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants Ronquillo,

19

Rielo and Anderson for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

20

On February 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking the appointment of

21

counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

22

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to

23

represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for

24

the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in

25

certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

26

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

27
28

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel because he lacks income, legal experience

5

and law library access. Plaintiff also contends that he is illiterate and relies on the assistance of a

6

fellow inmate with limited civil law knowledge. However, the prison is currently on lockdown,

7

which limits his ability to obtain inmate assistance. (ECF No. 61.)

8

The court has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find the required

9

exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and

10

that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not

11

exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily from indigent prisoners with

12

limited legal experience and education. If Plaintiff requires additional time to meet case-related

13

deadlines, then he may request appropriate extensions of time from the court. Further, at this

14

stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed

15

on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

February 18, 2014

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A. McAuliffe

2