Anderson v. Brown et al

Filing 35

ORDER Denying 33 Motion for Appointment of Counsel; ORDER Striking 34 Motion for Extension of Time, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 02/02/15. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DION ANDERSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
JERRY BROWN, et al,

15

Defendants.

1:12-cv-01839 AWI DLB (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 33]
ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
[ECF No. 34]

16
Plaintiff Dion Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

17
18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the

19

appointment of counsel. Also on September 25, 2014, a motion for an extension of time was

20

erroneously filed in this case.

21
22

I.

Motion for the Appointment of Counsel
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

23

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

24

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

25

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

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

similar cases almost daily. Further, at this stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a

9

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

10
11
12

in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.

13

II.

Motion for Extension of Time

14

On September 25, 2014, a motion for extension of time was filed in this case. However,

15

the motion was erroneously filed since it pertains to another plaintiff in another case. Therefore,

16

the motion will be STRICKEN.
ORDER

17
18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

19

1) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 33] is DENIED, without

20
21

prejudice; and
2) The motion for extension of time [ECF No. 34] is STRICKEN.

22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

February 2, 2015

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28

L. Beck

2