Gorrell v. Sneath et al

Filing 45

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 40 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/12/2013. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILSON GORRELL,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

THOMAS SNEATH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-0554 - JLT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Doc. 40)

16
17

On March 14, 2013, Plaintiff Wilson Gorrell (“Plaintiff”) filed motion for appointment of

18

counsel, asserting he “has no legal training, is limited in his access to the federal prisons’ law library,

19

has no access to either California statutes or case law, and is faced with a complex highly technical

20

case.” (Doc. 40 at 1). In addition, Plaintiff asserts he is “charged with the task of dealing with very

21

complicated issues during jury trial which will consist in large part of conflicting technical, scientific

22

and medical testimony by competing experts so as to require a high degree of skill in the gathering and

23

presentation of evidence and the examination and cross examination of witnesses.” Id.

24

In most civil cases, there is no constitutional right to counsel in most civil cases, but the Court

25

may request an attorney to represent indigent persons. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The Court cannot

26

require representation of a plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Mallard v. U.S. District Court for

27

the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nevertheless, in “exceptional circumstances,”

28
1

1

the Court has discretion to request the voluntary assistance of counsel. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d

2

1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997).

3

To determine whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the

4

likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in

5

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks

6

and citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated he is able to respond to the Court’s orders and

7

meet deadlines set by the Court. In addition, Plaintiff is very articulate and able to state his position in

8

an intelligible manner before the Court. Further, at this early stage in the proceeding, the Court is

9

unable to make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Therefore, the Court

10
11
12

does not find the required exceptional circumstances at this time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel
(Doc. 40) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

13
14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 12, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2