Mix v. King
Filing
21
ORDER Denying Motion For Appointment Of Counsel (ECF No. 20 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/7/2014. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROBERT D. MIX,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
CASE No. 1:13-cv-00823-AWI-MJS
ORDER
DENYING
MOTION
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
FOR
v.
(ECF No. 20)
AUDREY KING, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Robert D. Mix is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
18
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 16, 2013, Plaintiff
19
filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 20.)
20
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,
21
Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (partially overruled en banc on
22
other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1998)), and the Court cannot require an
23
attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United
24
States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).
25
In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary
26
assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1).
27
However, without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the
28
Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In
1
Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
1
determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate
2
both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate
3
his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (Internal
4
quotation marks and citations omitted.)
5
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional
6
circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that
7
he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is
8
not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early
9
stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to
10
succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does
11
not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
12
13
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No.
20) is DENIED, without prejudice.
14
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 7, 2014
/s/
18
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC _Signature- END:
19
Michael J. Seng
af4j4hi
20
21
22
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?