Herrera v. Rouch

Filing 24

ORDER Denying 23 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/13/2013. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERTO HERRERA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER
DENYING
MOTION
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

FOR

v.

14

CASE No. 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS

ROUCH,

(ECF No. 23)

15

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Roberto Herrera is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On

19

October 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed a second motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

20

(ECF No. 23.)

21

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

22

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (partially overruled en banc on

23

other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1998)), and the Court cannot require an

24

attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United

25

States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).

26

In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary

27

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1).

28

However, without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the
1

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

1

Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In

2

determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate

3

both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate

4

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal

5

quotation marks and citations omitted).

6

In the present case, the Court still does not find the required exceptional

7

circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that

8

he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is

9

not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early

10

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

11

succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does

12

not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

13
14

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is
DENIED, without prejudice.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 13, 2013

/s/

18

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC _Signature- END:

19

Michael J. Seng

ci4d6

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2