White et al v. Valarie

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING 19 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/21/13. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HORTENSE WHITE,

12
13
14

1:13-cv-00157-GSA (PC)

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

vs.
TRENONE VALARIE,

( #19)
15

Defendants.

16

________________________________/

17

On February 15, 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. At

2

this early stage of the proceedings, the court cannot determine that Plaintiff is likely to succeed

3

on the merits. This case was transferred to this court from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

4

on January 31, 2013, and Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of habeas in this § 1983 action less

5

than a week ago on February 15, 2013. The case is presently awaiting review on the court's

6

screening list. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the

7

motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

8
9

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

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
220hhe

February 21, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-