Gray v. Johnson et al
ORDER DENYING 252 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, Without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/7/2017. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF No. 252.)
ROMERO, et al.,
Dana Gray (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case was filed on September 12, 2013. (ECF No. 1.)
On August 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No.
252.) Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to
represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional
circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section
1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
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
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At
this stage of the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to
succeed on the merits. Because Plaintiff=s Fifth Amended Complaint was stricken from the
record without leave to amend, there is no complaint on record in this case for which the court
has found cognizable claims. Further, defendant Rebel’s motion to dismiss this case is pending
and may dispose of the case. Moreover, based on the court’s record, Plaintiff is able to
adequately articulate her claims and respond to the court’s orders. Plaintiff is advised that she
is not precluded from renewing the motion for appointment of counsel at a later stage of the
proceedings. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on August 18,
2017, is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 7, 2017
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?