Pinson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
ORDER DENYING 28 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/6/2015. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:13-cv-1821-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 28)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,
On October 22, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
19 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
20 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney
21 to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District
22 Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain
23 exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel
24 pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court
26 will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.
27 determining whether Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate
1 both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate
2 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal
3 quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional
5 circumstances. Plaintiff requests counsel on the ground that his legal materials have
6 been seized and will not be returned to him for several months. However, Plaintiff faces
7 no pending deadlines in the case, and he may request an extension of time if any
8 should arise before the return of his legal materials.
Moreover, even if it were assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and
10 that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his
11 case is not exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at
12 this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff
13 is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the
14 court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is
16 HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 6, 2015
Michael J. Seng
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?