Kietty v. Walker et al
Filing
121
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 120 Fifth Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/28/17. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
HUSSEIN ALI KIETTY,
9
10
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
A. WALKER, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:13-cv-00312-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 120]
Plaintiff Hussein Ali Kietty is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
15
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the
16
jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 302.
17
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s fifth motion for appointment of counsel, filed June 26,
18
2017. Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel because he is indigent, has limited access to the law
19
library, and trial in this action will likely involve conflicting testimony.
20
As Plaintiff is well aware, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this
21
action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require any
22
attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District
23
Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional
24
circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section
25
1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating
26
counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In
27
determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the
28
likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in
1
1
light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations
2
omitted).
The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s likelihood
3
4
of success on the merits and the ability of the Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
5
complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.
6
1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most
7
prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional
8
circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Furthermore, the fact
9
that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis does not entitle him to counsel. While a prose litigant
10
may be better served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this
11
instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the
12
“exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand, 113
13
F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied
14
appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better – particularly in
15
the realm of discovery and the security of expert testimony.”) In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff’s
16
reasons for requesting appointment of counsel indistinguishable from the reasons asserted by most
17
prisoners. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s fifth motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED, for the
18
reasons explained herein.
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
Dated:
22
June 28, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?