Guerra v. Kern County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 30 Motion to Appoint Counsel Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/8/2015. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

JOAQUIN GUERRA,
Plaintiff,
v.
KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-01077-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF No. 30)

Plaintiff Joaquin Guerra (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action

18

while a pre-trial detainee at the Kern County Jail. On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant

19

motion requesting appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 30.)

20

As Plaintiff previously has been informed, he does not have a constitutional right to

21

appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the

22

Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1).

23

Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109

24

S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request

25

the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

26
27

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

28
1

1

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

2

of 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

Plaintiff claims that he requires the appointment of counsel because he is proceeding in

5

forma pauperis, his imprisonment will limit his ability to litigate, the issues are complex, he has

6

limited knowledge of the law and limited education, and he is blind/visually impaired. (ECF No.

7

30, pp. 1-2.) The Court has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers and the record in this case, but

8

does not find the requisite exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not

9

well versed in the law, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost

10

daily from indigent prisoners. To the extent Plaintiff cites his vision issues, Plaintiff’s medical

11

evidence indicates that he may use a magnifier for reading. (ECF No. 18, p. 3.) If Plaintiff

12

requires additional time to comply with relevant deadlines and court orders because of his vision,

13

then he may seek appropriate extensions of time. Critically, the record demonstrates that

14

Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims and position in this matter. (ECF Nos. 12, 13, 16,

15

18.)

16

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed on April 6, 2015, is

17

HEREBY DENIED without prejudice.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 8, 2015

20

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2