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)

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