Rodriguez v. CDCR Departmental Review Board et al

Filing 45

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's First 44 Motion to Extend Time to File Response to Motion to Dismiss and DENYING 44 Motion to Appoint Counsel; 30-Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/1/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
CDCR DEPARTMENT OF REVIEW
BOARD, et al.,

15
Defendants.
16
17

1:12-cv-00757 AWI JLT (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS and
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
(Doc. 44)
30-DAY DEADLINE

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

18

1983. On March 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to file a response to the motion

19

to dismiss and a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 44.)

20
21

Plaintiff has shown good cause for the extension of time he requests to file his opposition
to Defendants' pending motion to dismiss to be granted.

22

However, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,

23

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney

24

to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court

25

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

26

certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

27

pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

28
1

There is no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, such that the Court

1
2

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

3

whether Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of

4

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

5

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even

6
7

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

8

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

9

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

10

a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the

11

record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.

12

Id.

13

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

(1) Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of service of this order in which to file an

15
16
17

opposition to the motion to dismiss; and
(2) Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated:

April 1, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2