Maddox v. Yates, et al.

Filing 5

ORDER Denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/12/13. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID MADDOX, 12 1:13-cv-00171 BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 vs. 14 JAMES A. YATES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ________________________________/ (ECF No. 3) 17 On February 4, 2013, Plaintiff David Maddox (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion seeking the 18 appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this 19 action. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an 20 attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States 21 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). 22 However, in certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of 23 counsel 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, a 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 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. Even 2 if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law, that he is taking mental health “Psych 3 medication” and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to 4 relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with similar circumstances almost daily. 5 Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff 6 is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does 7 not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 8 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 9 DENIED without prejudice. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: 10c20k February 12, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 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?