Bosley v. Valasco et al

Filing 8

ORDER Denying 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/26/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT DeWAYNE BOSLEY, JR. ,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
M. VELASCO, et al,

1:14-cv-00049-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Document# 5)

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Robert DeWayne Bosley, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro

18

se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 23, 2014, Plaintiff

19

filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 5.)

20

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

21

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an

22

attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United

23

States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).

24

In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary

25

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1).

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

26

However, without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the

27

Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In

28

determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate
1

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).

4

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional

5

circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that

6

he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is

7

not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early

8

stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to

9

succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does

10
11
12

not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is
DENIED, without prejudice.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 26, 2014

/s/

16

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Michael J. Seng

2