Pulido v. Lunes et al

Filing 32

ORDER DENYING 31 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 2/24/16. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG (PC) JOSE J. PULIDO, Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. (ECF No. 31.) M. LOUNES, et al., Defendants. 16 17 On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 18 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 19 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent 20 Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the 21 Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). 22 circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 23 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 24 However, in certain exceptional Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 25 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. 26 Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 27 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 28 complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 1 In determining whether 1 In the present case, Plaintiff argues that despite his efforts, he has been unable to find 2 counsel willing to represent him. Plaintiff also argues that he is disabled due to gunshot wounds, 3 suffers from severe chronic pain, and takes strong pain medication which makes him drowsy. 4 Plaintiff also argues that he suffers from mental issues and takes psychiatric medication which 5 affects his state of mind and causes heavy drowsiness and lack of focus. Plaintiff asserts that he 6 is not well educated or knowledgeable about litigation. 7 Plaintiff’s health issues and lack of knowledge alone do not make Plaintiff’s case 8 exceptional. While the Court has found that “Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants failed to 9 protect him are sufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment,” this finding is not a 10 determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. 11 Plaintiff’s claims do not appear complex, and based on a review of the record in this case, it 12 appears that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. Thus, the Court does not find the 13 14 15 16 17 (ECF No. 12 at 3:15-16.) required exceptional circumstances, and Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: February 24, 2016 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?