Hood v. Mims et al

Filing 15

ORDER Denying 14 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 07/11/14. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALBERT LEE HOOD,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
MARGARET MIMS, et al.,

1:13-cv-00108 LJO GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Document# 14)

Defendant(s).

16
17

On July 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff

18

does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113

19

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

20

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

21

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain

22

exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

23

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

Aexceptional 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. At this

2

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

3

on the merits. None of the defendants have been served with process or appeared in the case.

4

Based on the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate

5

his claims. Further, the legal issues in this case B whether defendants denied plaintiff adequate

6

medical care B are not complex, and this court is faced with similar cases almost daily.

7

Therefore, plaintiff=s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later

8

stage of the proceedings.

9
10

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 11, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2