Cauthen v. Rivera et al

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 2 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 11/26/12: Motion is DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10 DAVID SAFIDI CAUTHEN, JR.,
11
12

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01747-LJO-GBC (PC)

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.

13 IGNACIO RIVERA, et al.,
Doc. 2
14

Defendants.
____________________________________/

15
16

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

17 1983. On October 26, 2012, 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 F.3d
19 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant
20 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,
21 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the
22 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
23

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek

24 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
25 “exceptional circumstances exist, the District Court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
26 the merits [and] the ability of the [Plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity
27 of the legal issues involved.” Id.
28

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if
Page 1 of 2

1 it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations
2 which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with
3 similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a
4 determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record
5 in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
6

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

7 DENIED, without prejudice.
8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated:
10 7j8cce

November 26, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2