Shehee v. Ahlin et al
Filing
14
ORDER Denying 13 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 01/29/2015. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
PAMELA AHLIN,
1:14-cv-00005 LJO DLB (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Document# 13)
Defendant.
16
17
On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
18
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland,
19
113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent
20
plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the
21
Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain
22
exceptional circumstances, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to
23
section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
24
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek
25
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
26
Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
27
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
28
complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
1
1
Plaintiff’s motion for counsel is based mainly on his contention that he is now “totally,
2
completely, and irrevocably blind.” ECF No. 13, at 1. This alone does not make Plaintiff’s case
3
exceptional under the Ninth Circuit’s standards discussed above.
4
At this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff
5
is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was dismissed on
6
December 29, 2014, for failure to state a claim, with a final opportunity to amend. To date,
7
Plaintiff has not filed a Second Amended Complaint. Thus, there is no complaint on record in
8
this case for which the Court has found cognizable claims. Moreover, based on the Court’s
9
record, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims, or respond to
10
the Court’s orders. Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing the motion for
11
appointment of counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.
12
13
14
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
January 29, 2015
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?