Santiago v. Patel et al

Filing 15

ORDER Denying Motion For Appointment Of Counsel (Motion# 14 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/28/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSE SANTIAGO,

12

1:13-cv-00032-GSA (PC)

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

13

vs.

14

V. PATEL, et al.,
(MOTION #14)

15

Defendants.

16

________________________________/

17

On March 26, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

18

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

19

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

20

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

21

for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However,

22

in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
-1-

1

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

2

the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this early

3

stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to

4

succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, filed on March 11, 2013, awaits the

5

Court’s screening required under 28 U.S.C. 1915. Thus, to date the Court has not found any

6

cognizable claims in plaintiff’s complaint for which to initiate service of process, and no other

7

parties have yet appeared. The legal issue in this case – whether defendants are not providing

8

medical supplies needed for plaintiff’s colostomy care – is not complex, and this court is faced

9

with similar cases almost daily. Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case, the

10

Court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Therefore, plaintiff’s

11

motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the

12

proceedings.

13
14
15
16

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
220hhe

March 28, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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