Bullock v. Wasco State Prison Medical

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/23/2015. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1:14-cv-00092-GSA (PC) GORDON BULLOCK, Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. (Document# 18) WASCO STATE PRISON MEDICAL, et al., Defendants. 16 On July 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 25 Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 26 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 27 complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 28 1 1 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this 2 early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to 3 succeed on the merits. On July 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to file a third amended 4 complaint, which is pending. Thus, there is no complaint on record in this case for which the 5 Court has found cognizable claims, and no other parties have yet appeared. Moreover, based on a 6 review of the record in this case, the court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate 7 his medical claims. Therefore, Plaintiff=s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of 8 9 10 11 the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: 13 July 23, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 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?