Woods v. Martin et al

Filing 17

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the Filing Fee and Motion for Appointment 15 , 16 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/1/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

KIPP ARON WOODS,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

CASE No. 1:13-cv-01621-AWI-SAB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO DISMISS THE FILING FEE
AND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

SHANNON LESLIE MARTIN, et al.,
(ECF No. 15, 16)

12

Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiff Kipp Aron Woods, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

15

this action on October 9, 2013. On March 6, 2014, this action was dismissed for failure to state a

16

claim. On November 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order dismissing the filing fee and a

17

motion for appointment of counsel.

18

Plaintiff seeks to have the order requiring him to make monthly payments pursuant to 28

19

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) vacated. Section 1915(b)(1) provides that “if a prisoner brings a civil action

20

or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing

21

fee.” Plaintiff filed this action and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The filing fee

22

in this action is due regardless of whether the action was ultimately dismissed for failure to state a

23

claim. Plaintiff’s motion to be relieved of the requirement that he pay the filing fee in this action

24

is denied.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in

1

certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

2

pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

3

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

4

court has screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint and found that he was attempting to pursue

5

claims against a defendant who is entitled to absolute immunity and a defendant who is not a state

6

actor. For these reasons, Plaintiff was unable to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim.

7

Plaintiff’s complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a claim and this action has been closed.

8

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an order dismissing

9
10

the filing fee and motion for appointment of counsel are DENIED.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 1, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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