Maddox v. Yates, et al.
ORDER Denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/12/13. (Verduzco, M)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1:13-cv-00171 BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
JAMES A. YATES, et al.,
(ECF No. 3)
On February 4, 2013, Plaintiff David Maddox (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion seeking the
appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this
action. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an
attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989).
However, in certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of
counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even
if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law, that he is taking mental health “Psych
medication” and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to
relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with similar circumstances almost daily.
Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff
is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does
not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 12, 2013
/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?