Taylor v. Arakaki et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 16 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 04/03/15. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LATROY TAYLOR,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
LANCE ARAKAKI et al.,

1:14-cv-00479-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 16)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Latroy Taylor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed

19

a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to

20

appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the

21

court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard

22

v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct.

23

1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the

24

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

25

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek

26

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

27

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on

28

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
1

1
2

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even

3

if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations

4

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with

5

similar cases almost daily from indigent prisoners alleging deliberate indifference to serious

6

medical needs. Although Plaintiff reports that he has limited education and participates in the

7

mental health system, he has not demonstrated an inability to comprehend proceedings.

8

According to the record, Plaintiff has obtained the assistance of other inmates. (ECF No. 16.)

9

Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that

10

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the

11

Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

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/ Barbara

April 3, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2