Bradford v. Marchak
Filing
321
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 319 Motion for the Appointment of Counsel to Assist Plaintiff with Deposition, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/9/18. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,
11
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
M. MARCHAK,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:14-cv-1689-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL TO
ASSIST PLAINTIFF WITH DEPOSITION
(Doc. 319)
16
17
18
19
20
21
Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel to assist
Plaintiff with deposition, filed on May 2, 2018. (Doc. 319.)
As Plaintiff has been previously informed, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed
22
counsel in this action. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other
23
grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). The court cannot require an attorney to represent
24
plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490
25
U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the
26
voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a
27
reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only
28
in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, a
1
1
district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the
2
[plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id.
3
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
4
In this case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances for the appointment
5
of counsel. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made
6
serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. A review
7
of the record in this case shows that Plaintiff can articulate his claim and arguments, and the legal
8
issue he proceeds upon is not complex. Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot
9
make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits.
10
Plaintiff asserts that he requires counsel to assist with his deposition as the Court has ordered
11
the parties to meet and confer to agree on setting a date for his deposition. The Court found that
12
Plaintiff willfully refused to be deposed at his prior scheduled deposition, but the record reflects that
13
he can be deposed and had originally agreed to be deposed. (Doc. 287.) On May 4, 2018, the Court
14
also denied Plaintiff’s recent motion for a protective order, confirming that he is required to submit to
15
a deposition, which must occur no later than June 18, 2018. (Doc. 320.) The Court does not find any
16
exceptional circumstances that would require counsel for Plaintiff for the taking of his deposition,
17
upon consideration of the record and the factors discussed above.
18
19
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel to assist Plaintiff with
deposition, (Doc. 319), is HERBY DENIED.
20
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
May 9, 2018
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?