Hearns v. Gonzales

Filing 57

ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 52 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/5/16: Motion is DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMAR R. HEARNS,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
R. GONZALES, et al.,

15

1:14-cv-01177 DAD MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 52)

Defendants.

16
17

On November 28, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of

18

counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,

19

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an

20

attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United

21

States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814,

22

1816 (1989).

23

In certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary

24

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1).

25

However, without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court

26

will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

27

determining whether Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate

28

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

In

both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate
1

1

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal

2

quotation marks and citations omitted).

3

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional

4

circumstances. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that

5

he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is

6

not exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early

7

stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to

8

succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does

9

not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

10
11

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is
HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14

Dated:

December 5, 2016

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Michael J. Seng

2