Hypolite v. Zariora et al

Filing 40

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Fifth Motion for Appointment of Counsel 39 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/21/16: 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

AVERY HYPOLITE,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
R. ZAMORA,

15

Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 39]

17

Plaintiff Avery Hypolite is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to United States magistrate judge jurisdiction on

19

August 22, 2014. (ECF No. 7.)

20
21
22

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s fifth motion for the appointment of counsel, filed June
17, 2016.
As Plaintiff is aware, there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

F.3d at 1525.

28
1

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek

1
2

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

3

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the

4

merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

5

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

6

As with Plaintiff’s prior motions, the Court does find that the interests of justice or exceptional

7

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th

8

Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim

9

of excessive force and the legal issues present in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has

10

thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint. While a pro se litigant may be better served with

11

the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to

12

“articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances”

13

which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525

14

(finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of

15

counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better-particularly in the realm of

16

discovery and the securing of expert testimony.”) Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as

17

lack of funds, legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional

18

circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Accordingly,

19

Plaintiff’s fifth motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated:

23

June 21, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2