Hypolite v. Zariora et al
Filing
29
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's THIRD Motion For Appointment Of Counsel (ECF No. 26 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/10/2015. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
AVERY HYPOLITE,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
R. ZAMORA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 26]
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On November 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a third motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No.
19
20
Case No.: 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB (PC)
Plaintiff Avery Hypolite is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
26.)
21
There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d
22
1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to
23
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490
24
U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the
25
voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
26
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
27
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
28
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the
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).
In the present case, the Court does find that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional
3
4
circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th
5
Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim
6
of excessive force and the legal issues present in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has
7
thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint.
While a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se
8
9
litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative
10
complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of
11
counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28
12
U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner
13
“may well have fared better-particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert
14
testimony.”) Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited
15
law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for
16
voluntary assistance of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff third motion for appointment of counsel is
17
DENIED, without prejudice.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Dated:
21
November 10, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?