Herrera v. Ahlin et al
Filing
14
ORDER DENYING 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/21/15. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RUBEN HERRERA,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
PAM AHLIN, et al.,
1:14-cv-00164-LJO-GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Document# 10)
Defendants.
16
17
On May 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff
18
does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113
19
F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff
20
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern
21
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
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this
2
early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on
3
the merits.
4
complaint within thirty days. To date, Plaintiff has not filed the second amended complaint.
5
Thus, there is no complaint on record in this case for which the court has found cognizable
6
claims. It is too early for service of process, and no other parties have yet appeared. Moreover,
7
the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims or respond to the
8
9
10
11
12
court=s orders. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of 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.
13
Dated:
14
On May 20, 2015, the court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended
May 21, 2015
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?