Guillermo Trujillo Cruz v. Gomez et al
Filing
8
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 7 Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Issuance of Subpoena, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/22/2015. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ,
12
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
GOMEZ, et al.,
15
1:15-cv-00859-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF=S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL AND ISSUANCE OF
SUBPOENA
(ECF No. 7.)
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
I.
BACKGROUND
20
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
21
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On June 8, 2015, Plaintiff
22
filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.)
23
On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for issuance of a subpoena and appointment
24
of counsel. (ECF No. 7.)
25
II.
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
26
Plaintiff requests court-appointed counsel to conduct an investigation and, if
27
appropriate, to file a motion for DNA testing. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to
28
appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and
1
1
the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
2
Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298,
3
109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may
4
request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at
5
1525.
6
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
7
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
8
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
9
of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
10
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
11
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At
12
this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely
13
to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on June 8, 2015, and the Complaint
14
awaits the Court=s screening required under 28 U.S.C. 1915. Thus, to date the Court has not
15
found any cognizable claims in Plaintiff=s Complaint for which to initiate service of process,
16
and no other parties have yet appeared. Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case,
17
the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Therefore,
18
Plaintiff=s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of
19
the proceedings.
20
III.
MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA
21
Plaintiff requests the court to issue a subpoena compelling the Kern County Superior
22
Court to produce evidence. Plaintiff’s request shall be denied because it is not yet time for
23
discovery in this case. The court will issue a scheduling order opening discovery after the
24
complaint has been served and a defendant has filed an Answer to the complaint. At this stage
25
of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s Complaint awaits the court’s requisite screening process.
26
Service of process shall not be initiated until the court has screened the complaint and finds that
27
Plaintiff states cognizable claims. Therefore, it is not time for discovery in this action, and
28
Plaintiff’s request for the issuance of a subpoena is premature.
2
1
IV.
CONCLUSION
2
Based on the foregoing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
1.
4
5
Plaintiff=s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice;
and
2.
Plaintiff=s request for issuance of a subpoena is DENIED as premature.
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 22, 2015
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?