Goolsby v. Cate et al
Filing
7
ORDER Denying 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/14/13. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THOMAS GOOLSBY, et al.,
12
13
1:13-cv-00119-GSA (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
vs.
14
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
________________________________/
(MOTION #6)
17
On February 11, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
18
Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland,
19
113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiffs
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 exceptional
22
circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section
23
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 of
27
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity
28
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
early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiffs are likely to
3
succeed on the merits. Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on January 25, 2013, less than a month ago,
4
and the Complaint awaits the Court’s screening required under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Thus, to date
5
the Court has not found any cognizable claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint for which to initiate service
6
of process, and no other parties have yet appeared. Moreover, based on a review of the record in
7
this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs cannot adequately articulate their claims.
8
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later
9
stage of the proceedings.
10
11
12
13
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
220hhe
February 14, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
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?