Sansone v. Thomas

Filing 72

ORDER denying 69 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/31/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD M. SANSONE,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. C. THOMAS,

15

1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 69)

Defendant.

16
17

On October 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. This is

18

Plaintiff’s third such request; his two prior requests were both denied without prejudice. (ECF

19

Nos. 19, 21, 40, 57.) As the Court has previously explained, Plaintiff does not have a

20

constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

113 F.3d at 1525.

26

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

27

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

28

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

similar cases almost daily. Nothing has changed since Plaintiff’s first two motions to appoint

7

counsel were denied and Plaintiff’s claims are not so complex as to require appointment of

8

counsel. Id.

9
10

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

11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13

Dated:

October 31, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2