Rodriguez v. Isaac

Filing 35

ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 31 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/30/15: Motion is DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NOEL RODRIGUEZ,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

1:11-cv-01914-AWI-GSA-(PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Document# 31)

ISAAC,
Defendant.

16
17

On July 24, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff

18

does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

23

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

24
25
26
27
28

However, in certain

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

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of 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 omitted).
1

1

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

At

2

this stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to

3

succeed on the merits; defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the doctrines of res judicata and

4

collateral estoppel is now pending and may dispose of the case. Moreover, based on the record in

5

this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Further, the

6

legal issue in this case B whether defendant failed to protect plaintiff B does not appear complex,

7

and this court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Therefore, plaintiff=s motion shall be

8
9
10
11

denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
Dated:
13

July 30, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2