Carl Ethridge v. Doe

Filing 37

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Without Prejudice 34 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/12/15. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARL ETHRIDGE,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02088-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
[ECF No. 34]

Plaintiff Carl Ethrdige is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not

20

have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525

21

(9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

22

1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296,

23

298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary

24

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
1

1

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

2

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

3

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it

4

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

5

proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. Plaintiff alleges a claim of retaliation

6

against several defendants in violation of the First Amendment. The legal issues present in this action

7

are not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint. However, at

8

this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to

9

succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that

10

plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

11
12

DENIED, without prejudice.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:

16

February 12, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2