Johnson v. Yulit et al
Filing
29
ORDER Denying Motion For Appointment Of Counsel (Document# 23 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/23/2014. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROBERT D. JOHNSON,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. YULIT, et al.,
1:12-cv-00947 GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Document# 23)
Defendants.
16
17
On November 14, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
18
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland,
19
113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent
20
plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the
21
Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain
22
exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to
23
section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 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. At this
2
early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to
3
succeed on the merits. Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint on November 20, 2013,
4
and on January 15, 2014, plaintiff lodged a Third Amended Complaint, indicating that he seeks to
5
amend the complaint again. There is no complaint on record in this case for which the Court has
6
found cognizable claims. It is too early for service of process, and no other parties have yet
7
appeared. Moreover, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims
8
or respond to the court=s orders. Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing the
9
motion for appointment of counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.
10
11
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated:
January 23, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
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?