Goff v. Gamez et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel, without prejudice 40 signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 8/2/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

THOMAS L. GOFF,
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15

GAMEZ, et al.,

16

Case No. 1:15-cv-00937-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO
COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF NO. 40)

Defendants.

17
18
19
20

Thomas Goff (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with
this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21

On July 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No.

22

40). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because the physical and psychological injuries he

23

suffered have caused him to be unable to proceed with this case, and so that he “may proceed

24

within the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that is not currently available to Plaintiff.” (Id.).

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Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952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
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

113 F.3d at 1525.

5

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

6

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

7

“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of

8

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

9

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

10

The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has

11

reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that

12

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can

13

adequately articulate his claims.

14
15
16
17

Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his motion for appointment of
pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro
bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 2, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2