Young v. Biter et al
Filing
14
ORDER denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/4/2015. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
HOWARD ALLEN YOUNG,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
M.D. BITER, et al,
15
1:14-cv-01942-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 2)
Defendant.
16
Plaintiff Howard Allen Young (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
17
18
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this
19
action on December 5, 2014. Plaintiff also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No.
20
2.)
21
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
22
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to
23
represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for
24
the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in
25
certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel
26
pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
27
28
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
1
1
Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on
2
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
3
complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
4
Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel based on psychotropic medication that he is
5
taking and its side effects. Plaintiff refers the Court to Exhibit E filed with his complaint. Exhibit
6
E consists of an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel in the matter of
7
Young v. Smalls, et al., Case No. 09cv2545 DMS (KSC) dated December 12, 2013. Plaintiff also
8
includes a Statewide Psychotropic Medication Consent Form. (ECF No. 1, pp. 145-49.) The
9
Court has reviewed the exhibits, but does not find the required exceptional circumstances. First,
10
Plaintiff has not identified any specific medication side effects that prevent him from articulating
11
his claims in this action. Based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that
12
Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Second, and unlike the matter of Young v.
13
Smalls, et al., at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that
14
Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Id.
15
16
17
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
March 4, 2015
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
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?