Jaimes v. Barnes et al

Filing 110

ORDER DENYING, Without Prejudice, 109 Plaintiff's Third Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/12/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JUAN JAIMES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
DR. ROBERT J. BARNES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 109]

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion for appointment of counsel, filed on

19
20

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00952-LJO-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff Juan Jaimes is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

December 5, 2017.
As Plaintiff was previously advised, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed

21
22

counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot

23

require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States

24

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

25

exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

26

section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

27

///

28
1

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

1
2

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

3

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

4

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

5

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of deliberate indifference to his medical needs and the legal

6
7

issues present in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his allegations in

8

the complaint and filed several motions in the action. Plaintiff’s has failed to demonstrate exceptional

9

circumstances to warrant the appointment of voluntary counsel in this action. While a pro se litigant

10

may be better served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this

11

instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the

12

“exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand v.

13

Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district

14

court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better-

15

particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert testimony.”) Circumstances common

16

to most prisoners, such as lack of funds, legal education and limited law library access and other

17

resources, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary

18

assistance of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s third motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:

22

December 12, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2