Kinney v. Brazelton, et al.

Filing 24

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Appointment Of Counsel (ECF No. 23 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/18/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DIJON KINNEY,

12
13
14
15

CASE No. 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
(ECF No. 23)
P.D. BRAZELTON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Dijon Kinney is a state prisoner pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a

19

motion seeking the appointment of counsel and instruction on when he is required to

20

respond to Court orders. (ECF No. 23.)

21

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

22

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (partially overruled en banc on

23

other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1998)), and the Court cannot require an

24

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

25

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

26

In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary

27

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

28

However, without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the
1

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

1

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

2

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

3

both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate

4

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (Internal

5

quotation marks and citations omitted.)

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13
14

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No.
23) is DENIED, without prejudice.

15

Not all orders from the Court require a party to respond. Each party must review

16

every order carefully to see if it requires, requests or invites a response. A party must

17

follow all instructions given by the Court.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 18, 2014

/s/

21

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2