Brown v. United States of America, et al.

Filing 49

ORDER DENYING 46 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/19/2013. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH A. BROWN,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

1:12-cv-00165-AWI-GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Document# 46)

Defendants.

16
17

On December 12, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

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

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 this

2

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

3

succeed on the merits.

4

September 20, 2012, approximately a week ago, and the Fourth Amended Complaint awaits the

5

court=s screening required by 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Thus, to date the court has not found any

6
7
8
9

Plaintiff filed the Fourth Amended Complaint on December 12,

cognizable claims in Plaintiff=s complaint for which to initiate service of process, and no other
parties have yet appeared. Plaintiff’s claims – for retaliation, conspiracy, violations of due
process, excessive force, and inadequate medical care – are not complex, and based on the record
in this case, the court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.
Therefore, Plaintiff=s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later

10
stage of the proceedings.
11
12

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 19, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2