Shehee v. King

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING 13 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/6/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

AUDREY KING,

15

1:14-cv-00590 AWI-GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Document# 13)

Defendant.

16
17

On October 30, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

18

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland,

19

113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent

20

plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the

21

Southern 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
25
26
27
28

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
Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
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.

2

Plaintiff submits a medical record showing that he is legally blind, and he asserts that he can no

3

longer proceed without an attorney. However, Plaintiff has not described the extent of his

4

blindness or explained why he cannot proceed with non-attorney assistance. Based on a review

5

of the record in this case, the court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his

6
7
8
9

claims or respond to court orders. Moreover, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court
cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff=s complaint
was dismissed on October 17, 2014 for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend, and Plaintiff
has not filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 12.) Therefore, to date the court has not found any
cognizable claims in plaintiff=s complaint for which to initiate service of process, and no other

10
parties have yet appeared. Therefore, Plaintiff=s motion shall be denied without prejudice to
11
12
13

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.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 6, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2