Kietty v. Walker et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 24 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/23/2014. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HUSSEIN ALI KIETTY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
A. WALKER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00312-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 24]

Plaintiff Hussein Ali Kietty is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second motion requesting the appointment of counsel.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court

24

may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at

25

1525.

26

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek

27

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

28

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the
1

1

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

2

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, as the Court has presented determined, exception circumstances to warrant

3
4

the appointment of counsel are not present. Even if it assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the

5

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

6

not exceptional. Plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment claim against several defendants for the use

7

of excessive force. The legal issues present in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has

8

thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint. However, at this early stage in the proceedings,

9

the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a

10

review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his

11

claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

12
13

DENIED, without prejudice.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:

17

September 23, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2