Torres v. Waddel

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 17 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/27/15: 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

GUSTAVO TORRES,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

1:14-cv-01217-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 17)

WADDEL,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Gustavo Torres (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 25, 2015, Plaintiff

19

filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right

20

to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and

21

the Court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1).

22

Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109

23

S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request

24

the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
1

1
2

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even

3

if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations

4

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with

5

similar cases almost daily from indigent prisoners in Administrative Segregation with limited

6

access to the law library. If Plaintiff requires additional time meet court deadlines, he may

7

request appropriate extensions of time. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court

8

cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a

9

review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate

10
11
12

his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED without prejudice.

13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

February 27, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2