Griffin v. Gonzales et al

Filing 38

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Oral Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5/1/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

1:15-cv-00577-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ORAL
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO
BONO COUNSEL

GONZALES, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Matthew Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

20

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 1, 2017, the Court held an initial

21

scheduling conference in this case. At the conference, Plaintiff made an oral motion for the

22

appointment of pro bono counsel. According to Plaintiff, he needs counsel appointed because of

23

issues related to his incarceration in North Carolina, and because he has a serious vision

24

impairment.

25

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

26

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952

27

(9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28

28

U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,
1

1

490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances

2

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

3

113 F.3d at 1525.

4

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

5

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

In determining whether

6

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

7

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

8

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

9

The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. At this early stage in

10

the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the

11

merits. Moreover, based on the record in this case, it appears that Plaintiff can adequately articulate

12

his claims and respond to court orders.

13

Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing the motion for appointment of pro

14

bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. Additionally, the Court notes that if Plaintiff needs

15

any deadlines to be extended, he is free to ask the Court to extend those deadlines.

16
17
18

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s oral motion for appointment of pro bono counsel is
DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated:

May 1, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2