Nawabi v. Cates et al

Filing 16

ORDER Denying 14 Plaintiff's Request to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/10/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

1:13-cv-00272-AWI-BAM (PC)

IDRIS NAWABI,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
TO APPOINT COUNSEL
(ECF No. 14)

CATES, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Idris Nawabi (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on February

19

25, 2013. On March 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking the appointment of

20

counsel. (ECF No. 14.)

21

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

22

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to

23

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

24

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

25

certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

26

pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

27
28

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
1

1

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on

2

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

3

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

4

In the present case, Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel to safeguard his

5

constitutional rights because he is a layman and his incarceration makes it difficult to gather

6

evidence, investigate and cross-examine witnesses. (ECF No. 14.) The Court has considered

7

Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is

8

assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations

9

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with

10

similar cases almost daily from incarcerated individuals without legal training. Further, at this

11

early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to

12

succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find

13

that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

14
15
16

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s request for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

March 10, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2