Rodriguez v. CDCR Departmental Review Board et al

Filing 51

ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 50 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/25/14: Motion is DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LOUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,

12
13

1:12-cv-00757 AWI JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
(Doc. 50)

14

CDCR DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
BOARD, et al.,

15
Defendant(s).
16
17

On April 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff

18

does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113

19

F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff

20

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

22

Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113

23

F.3d at 1525.

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

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district Court must evaluate both the likelihood of success

27

of 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

1

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

2

if 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, this 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

5

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

6

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

7

Id.

8
9

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of
counsel, filed on April 23, 2014 (Doc. 50), is DENIED without prejudice.

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12

Dated:

April 25, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2