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)

Download PDF
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

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?