Condee v. Castillo et al
ORDER DENYING 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/18/16. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASTILLO, et al.
Case No. 1:14-cv-01072-DAD-EPG-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
(ECF No. 20)
Plaintiff Christopher Condee is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action
alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 27, 2016, the Court issued Findings and
Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint be dismissed
with prejudice for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 19.) On October 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 20.)
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an 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
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).
Plaintiff argues that exceptional circumstances exist because he has only a sixth grade
education and is opposed by “teams of highly skilled and seasoned state’s attorneys, whose
only job is to thwart prisoner law suits.” (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff contends that, without counsel,
his claim will fail because he will not be able to obtain adequate evidence to prove his case.
Plaintiff’s case does not demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required for the
appointment of counsel. The Court cannot find that there is a likelihood that Plaintiff’s claim
will succeed on its merits because it has already found that the complaint fails to state a claim.
Nor is this finding a result of any inability on Plaintiff’s part to articulate his claims. The Court
was able to adequately evaluate the facts Plaintiff alleged in his complaints; the
recommendation that the complaint be dismissed was made because, even assuming those facts
to be true, the complaint does not state a legal cause of action.
Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 20) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 18, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?