Condee v. Castillo et al

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/18/16. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER CONDEE, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, vs. CASTILLO, et al. Case No. 1:14-cv-01072-DAD-EPG-PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF No. 20) Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Christopher Condee is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action 19 alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 27, 2016, the Court issued Findings and 20 Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint be dismissed 21 with prejudice for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 19.) On October 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 22 motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 20.) 23 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 24 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 25 represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court 26 for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 27 circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 28 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 1 1 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 2 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 3 Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 4 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 5 complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 6 Plaintiff argues that exceptional circumstances exist because he has only a sixth grade 7 education and is opposed by “teams of highly skilled and seasoned state’s attorneys, whose 8 only job is to thwart prisoner law suits.” (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff contends that, without counsel, 9 his claim will fail because he will not be able to obtain adequate evidence to prove his case. 10 Plaintiff’s case does not demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required for the 11 appointment of counsel. The Court cannot find that there is a likelihood that Plaintiff’s claim 12 will succeed on its merits because it has already found that the complaint fails to state a claim. 13 Nor is this finding a result of any inability on Plaintiff’s part to articulate his claims. The Court 14 was able to adequately evaluate the facts Plaintiff alleged in his complaints; the 15 recommendation that the complaint be dismissed was made because, even assuming those facts 16 to be true, the complaint does not state a legal cause of action. 17 Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 20) is DENIED. 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 18, 2016 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?