Woods v. Martin et al

Filing 10

ORDER DENYING 9 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/22/2014. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

KIPP ARON WOODS,

9
10
11

Plaintiff,
v.
SHANNON LESLIE MARTIN, et al.,

12

CASE No. 1:13-cv-01621-AWI-SAB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
(ECF No. 9)

Defendants.

13
14

On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff Kipp Aron Woods, a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

15

action, filed a first amended complaint and motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not

16

have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520,

17

1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28

18

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,

19

490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances

20

the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand,

21

113 F.3d at 1525.

22

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

23

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

24

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

25

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

26

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

In determining whether

27

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if

28

it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations

1

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with

2

similar cases almost daily.

3

Further, the court has screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint and found that he is

4

attempting to pursue claims against a defendant who is entitled to absolute immunity and a

5

defendant who is not a state actor. For these reasons, Plaintiff is unable to amend his complaint to

6

state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff is therefore not likely to succeed on the merits. Finally, based

7

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

8

articulate his claims. Id.

9
10

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 22, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2