Pulido v. Lunes et al

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice 44 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 05/20/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

1:14-cv-01174 DAD-EPG (PC)

JOSE J. PULIDO,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

M. LUNES, et al.,

15

(Document# 44)
Defendants.

16
17

On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff

18

does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113

19

F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff

20

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern

21

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the

22

Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113

23

F.3d at 1525.

24

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, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

2

Plaintiff asserts that he is indigent and cannot afford counsel, suffers from serious medical and

3

mental health issues, and does not have the ability to obtain all the evidence or witnesses he needs

4

to present his case.

5

knowledgeable about the law. This does not make Plaintiff’s case exceptional. The legal issue in

6

this case --whether defendants failed to protect plaintiff from a risk of harm -- is not complex, and

7

a review of the records in this case show that Plaintiff is able to respond to Court orders and

8

articulate his claims. Moreover, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the

9

merits of this case. The Court’s finding that “Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants failed to protect

10

him are sufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment,” is not a determination that Plaintiff

11

is likely to succeed on the merits. (ECF No. 12 at 3:15-16.)

12
13
14

Plaintiff also asserts that he has not had much education and is not

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated:

May 20, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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