Garcia v. Juarez

Filing 47

ORDER DENYING 46 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 08/20/2015. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERTO M. GARCIA, JR., 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW M. JUAREZ, JR., 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-GSA (PC) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Document# 46) Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 On August 17, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 25 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. 26 Aexceptional 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 28 complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 1 In determining whether 1 In the present case, plaintiff argues that he has no legal experience, he is unable to afford counsel, 2 and he has been unable to obtain confidential reports of the defendant’s misconduct. This does 3 not make plaintiff’s case exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases daily. While the 4 court has found that “Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for use of excessive force in violation of 5 the Eighth Amendment against defendant Sergeant Matthew M. Juarez, Jr., for assaulting Plaintiff 6 7 8 9 when he was prone on the ground posing no threat to anyone,” this finding is not a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits and at this juncture, the court cannot find that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. (ECF No. 16 at 5:12-14.) Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against one officer is not complex, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Thus, the court does not 10 find the required exceptional circumstances, and plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without 11 12 13 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. 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 20, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?