Jefferson v. Calfornia Department of Corrections, et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 23 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/22/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
OMAR JEFFERSON,

Case No. 1:14-cv-00869-AWI-SAB PC

7

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff,
8
v.

(ECF NO. 23)

9
R. NUCKLES,
10
Defendant.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff Omar Jefferson a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 23.)
Plaintiff has not previously sought the appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff is advised that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,
Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require any
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 (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
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
on 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).
In the present case, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find

28

1

1 the required exceptional circumstances. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987);
2 Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of
3 failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The legal issues present in this action
4 are not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his arguments in the complaint filed in
5 this action. Plaintiff argues that he has limited law library access, and it is difficult for him to
6 obtain information. Plaintiff also argues that if this case proceeds to trial, counsel would be
7 necessary to help him cross-examine witnesses. In forma pauperis status alone does not alone
8 entitle Plaintiff to appointed counsel. That it is difficult for Plaintiff to obtain information does
9 not constitute exceptional circumstances.
While a pro se litigant may be setter served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a

10

11 pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the
12 relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the
13 appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion
14 under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro
15 se prisoner “may well have fared better – particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing
16 of expert testimony.”) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the
17 appointment of counsel is DENIED.
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Dated:

April 22, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2