Holmes v. Jaramillo et al
Filing
26
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 23 Motion to Appoint Counsel and Director-Private Investigator for ADA Disability signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 03/15/2013. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEVIN HOLMES,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
JARAMILLO et al.,
15
Defendant.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:12-cv-01759 - JLT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND DIRECTORPRIVATE INVESTIGATOR FOR ADA
DISABILITY
(Doc. 23)
17
Plaintiff Kevin Holmes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court permitted Plaintiff the right to
19
proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 13.) Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for the
20
appointment of counsel and “director-private investigator for ADA disability,” filed March 13, 2013.
21
(Doc. 23.)
22
A. Appointment of Counsel.
23
As the Court advised Plaintiff in response to his motion for appointment of counsel—filed only
24
14 days ago--under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff
25
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District
26
of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). Plaintiff is advised that he does not have a
27
constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th
28
Cir. 1997). Only in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance
1
1
of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Exceptional circumstances exist
2
when there is “the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the [in]ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate
3
his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks
4
and citations omitted).
5
As noted in the Court’s order dated March 6, 2013, the Court does not find the required
6
exceptional circumstances, at least at this time. Every day the Court is confronted with cases raising
7
serious allegations by inmates who are not well-versed in the law, have minimal formal education and
8
who must rely upon the assistance of other inmates when drafting pleadings and other case-related
9
documents. Unfortunately, though the Court does not discount in any fashion the importance of
10
Plaintiff’s case, it simply is not exceptional.
11
stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the
12
merits. Based on a review of the record in this case, especially the documents Plaintiff filed in support
13
of this motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has been able to adequately articulate his claims. (Id.)
14
Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Moreover, as noted by the Court before, at this early
15
B. Appointment of Director-Private Investigator for ADA Disability.
16
28 U.S.C. § 1915 determines the Courts’ authority to grant or deny Plaintiff’s present motion.
17
No public funds may be expended on behalf of an indigent litigant where Congress has not authorized
18
such expenditure. Strain v. Sandham, No. CIV S-05-0474 GEB GGH P, 2007WL3231712*2 (E.D.Cal.
19
2007)(citing Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not authorize use of
20
public funds for an investigator. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Strain, 2007 WL at *2. While the Court notes
21
that Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12132, applies to inmates within state prisons, Williams v.
22
Schwarzenegger, No. 1:09–cv–00131–GSA–PC, 2009 WL 900049 *7 (E.D.Cal. 2009), the Court finds
23
no authority from Congress that would permit the Court to appoint a “director-private investigator for
24
ADA disability.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
25
Here, Plaintiff states he had difficulty reading and writing and cites his appeal decision which
26
makes this finding. However, Plaintiff is advised that the Court does not have the authority to make
27
the appointment he seeks. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate in any fashion why an
28
investigator is needed, what this person would investigate or how this investigation would bear on
2
1
Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of a director-private investigator for ADA
2
disability is DENIED.
ORDER
3
4
5
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel an investigator (Doc.
23) is DENIED.
6
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 15, 2013
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
9j7khijed
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?