Hamilton v. Wasco State Prison, et al.
Filing
21
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel, without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/5/2015. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALBERT J. HAMILTON,
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff,
v.
WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:15-cv-00661-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
[ECF No. 20]
Plaintiff Albert J. Hamilton is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of
19
the United States Magistrate Judge on May 28, 2015. Local Rule 302.
20
On August 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not
21
have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525
22
(9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
23
1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296,
24
298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary
25
assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
26
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
27
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
28
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the
1
1
merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the
2
legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
3
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it
4
assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if
5
proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. Plaintiff alleges a failure to protect
6
claim against Defendant Chendehen in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The legal issues present
7
in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint.
8
At this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to
9
succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that
10
Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
11
12
DENIED, without prejudice.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated:
16
August 5, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
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?