Hanna v. Mariposa County Sheriff Dept. et al

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING 24 Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 3/5/2013. (Figueroa, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

RICHARD CHARLES HANNA,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00501-AWI-SAB

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
(ECF No. 24)

12

MARIPOSA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT.,
et al.,

13
Defendants.
14

/

15
Plaintiff Richard Charles Hanna is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
16
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action as filed on April 2, 2012, and an order issued
17
finding service of the complaint appropriate on June 25, 2012. Plaintiff filed a motion for
18
appointment of counsel that was denied on December 18, 2012. On January 8, 2013, an order issued
19
directing the United States Marshal to serve the summons and complaint. Currently before the court
20
is Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel, filed February 25, 2013.
21
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
22
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent
23
plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern
24
District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional
25
circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section
26
1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
27
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
28
1

1

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

2

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of

3

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity

4

of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

5

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

6

it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations

7

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with

8

similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a

9

determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and, although Plaintiff claims that he

10

has a long term mental illness, the court has conducted a review of the record and does not find that

11

plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

12

Plaintiff also seeks information on the status of this action. Plaintiff is directed to the

13

informational order issued June 25, 2012. This action is currently pending service of the complaint.

14

Once the defendants are served and an answer is filed an order will issue opening discovery in this

15

action.

16
17

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

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:
i1eed4

March 5, 2013
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2