Palmer v. Berkson, et al.
Filing
9
ORDER Denying 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 06/27/2012. (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
WILL MOSES PALMER, III,
1:11-CV-01882-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
13
vs.
14
DR. RICHARD P. BERKSON, et al,
(ECF NO. 8)
15
16
17
Defendants.
________________________________/
Plaintiff Will Moses Palmer, III is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
18
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF
19
No. 1.) The Court screened the Complaint and ordered that by not later than August 24,
20
2012, Plaintiff either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to
21
proceed only on his due process claim against Defendants Clement and Huang.
22
(Orders, ECF Nos. 5, 7.)
23
24
25
On June 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel,
which is now before the Court.
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,
26
Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (partially overruled on other
27
grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998)), and the Court cannot require an
28
attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United
-1-
1
States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).
2
However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary
3
assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court
4
5
will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In
6
determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate
7
both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate
8
his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id.
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional
9
10
circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that
11
he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is
12
not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early
13
stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely
14
to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court
15
does not find that Plaintiff can not adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of
16
17
counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
Dated:
ci4d6
June 27, 2012
Michael J. Seng
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
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?