Anderson v. Brown et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JERRY BROWN, et al,
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]
Plaintiff Dion Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the
appointment of counsel. Also on September 25, 2014, a motion for an extension of time was
erroneously filed in this case.
Motion for the Appointment of Counsel
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to
represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in
certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel
pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even
if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations
which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with
similar cases almost daily. Further, at this stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a
determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record
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.
Motion for Extension of Time
On September 25, 2014, a motion for extension of time was filed in this case. However,
the motion was erroneously filed since it pertains to another plaintiff in another case. Therefore,
the motion will be STRICKEN.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 33] is DENIED, without
2) The motion for extension of time [ECF No. 34] is STRICKEN.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 2, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?