Blair v. CDCR et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 19 Motion to Appoint Counsel, Without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/29/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PERRY C. BLAIR,

12
13
14

15

Plaintiff,
v.
CDCR, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01156-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
[ECF No. 19]

Plaintiff Perry C. Blair is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On October 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does

20

not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520,

21

1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28

22

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490

23

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the

24

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
1

1

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

2

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s likelihood

3
4

of success on 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. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

6

1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most

7

prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional

8

circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. In the present case,

9

Defendants have not yet been served and no dispositive motions have been filed. Thus, the Court

10

cannot determine whether Plaintiff is likely to proceed on the merits of his case. Accordingly,

11

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will be DENIED, without prejudice.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

15

October 29, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2