Alfonso Hall v. Smith et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING 12 Plaintiff's Second Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/21/2016. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
ALFONSO HALL,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00860-BAM-PC

7

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
D. SMITH, et al.,

(ECF NO. 12)

10
Defendants.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff Hall is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for the
appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 12.)
Plaintiff is advised that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,
Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require any
attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain
exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to
section 195(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
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
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, but does not find
the required exceptional circumstances. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987);

28

1

1 Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of
2 excessive force, failure to protect, and interference with his right to send mail. Plaintiff argues
3 that it is the issues in this case are complex and involve confidential information. The legal
4 issues present in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his arguments
5 in the complaint filed in this action. In forma pauperis status alone does not alone entitle
6 Plaintiff to appointed counsel. That it may be difficult for Plaintiff to prosecute his case does not
7 constitute exceptional circumstances.
8

While a pro se litigant may be setter served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a

9 pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the
10 relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the
11 appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion
12 under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro
13 se prisoner “may well have fared better – particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing
14 of expert testimony.”)

The Court finds that Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims.

15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second motion for the appointment of
16 counsel is DENIED.
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 21, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2