Shapour v. State of California

Filing 10

ORDER DENYING 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/10/2013. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YOUSSEF SHAPOUR, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Department of Transportation Defendant. 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: No. 1:13-cv-1682 AWI-BAM ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 18 19 This action now proceeds on Plaintiff Youssef Shapour’s (“Plaintiff”) original Complaint, 20 filed on October 18, 2013, against Defendant the State of California Department of Transportation 21 (“Defendant”) for discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC § 22 2000e. (Doc. 1). On October 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking the appointment of 23 counsel. (Doc. 6). 24 REQUEST FOR COUNSEL 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a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 26 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 27 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District 1 1 of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). 2 circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 3 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 4 However, in certain exceptional Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 5 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 6 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the 7 merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 8 legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 9 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is 10 assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if 11 proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with similar 12 employment discrimination cases almost daily. Although Plaintiff is concerned about his ability to 13 litigate this matter, this is not sufficient basis for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is required by 14 the Local Rules to notify the court and opposing parties of his current address to ensure that he 15 receives service of all orders and papers in this matter. Local Rule 183(b). Further, at this early stage 16 in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the 17 merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot 18 adequately articulate his claims. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 19 20 For these reasons, Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel shall be denied without prejudice. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 21 22 23 Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 24 25 26 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara December 10, 2013 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?