Turner v. Gibson et al

Filing 7

ORDER Denying 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 09/02/2011. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY R. TURNER,
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.

13
14

1:11-cv-01395-GBC (PC)

CONNIE GIBSON, et al.,
(ECF No. 6)
Defendants.

15
16

________________________________/
ORDER

17
18

On August 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816

23

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

24

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

25

1525.

26

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

27

will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In

28

determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate
-1-

1

both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate

2

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal

3

quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional

4
5

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

6

he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is

7

not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this

8

early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is

9

likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the

10

Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is

11
12

HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated:
1j0bbc

September 2, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-