Stewart Manago v. Gonzalez et al
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 35 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 1/13/13. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01269-SMS PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
GONZALEZ, et al.,
Plaintiff, Stewart Mango, (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner who is currently proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed
his Complaint on August 1, 2011. (Doc. 1.) The Complaint was screened and dismissed with
leave to amend since it failed to state any cognizable claims. (Doc. 29.) On January 7, 2013,
Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 35.)
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action.
Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349,
1353 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d
at 970; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). “When determining
whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the
merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 quoting Weygant v. Look,
718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (emphasis in original). “Neither of these considerations is
dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970, quoting Wilborn 789
F.2d at 1331.
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. The 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,1 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 the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 13, 2013
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
W hile Plaintiff’s original Complaint was screened and dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim, the
Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint to determine whether it states any cognizable claims
for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court has many civil cases pending before it and will screen Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint in due course.
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?