Delgado v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 10

ORDER DENYING 8 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 11/20/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10 ALEZANDER DELGADO,
11

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00319-AWI-GBC (PC)

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

12 v.
13 GONZALEZ, et al.,

Docs. 8, 9
14

Defendants.
____________________________________/

15
16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

17 1983. On September 4, 2012 and October 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment
18 of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
19 Rowland, 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 Southern
21 District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court
22 may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
23
24

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek

25 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
26 “exceptional circumstances exist, the District Court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
27 the merits [and] the ability of the [Plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity
28 of the legal issues involved.” Id.
Page 1 of 2

1

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if

2 it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations
3 which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with
4 similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a
5 determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record
6 in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
7

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

8 DENIED.
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
Dated:
11 7j8cce

November 20, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2