Cochran v. Aguirre, et al.

Filing 66

ORDER denying, without prejudice, Plaintiff's Sixth Motion for Appointment of Counsel re 65 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/31/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

BILLY COY COCHRAN,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.
E. AGUIRRE,

12

Defendant.

13

16

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
PLAINTIFF’S SIXTH MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 65]

Plaintiff Billy Coy Cochran is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

§ 1983.
On October 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATIONS BY

17

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND RESPONSE”, under California Rules of Court 1.100. In

18

response to the impairment necessitating accommodation, Plaintiff writes “Post-traumatic stress

19

disorder, depressive mood disorder, poly substance abuse dependence, anti-social personality disorder,

20

and gender identity disorder,” and Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in this

21

litigation. (ECF No. 65.)

22

As an initial matter, Plaintiff is advised that federal courts, such as this Court, are not bound by

23

California Rules of Court. Further, to the extent Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel in this

24

case, his request must be denied. Plaintiff has previously filed five requests for the appointment of

25

counsel, which have all been denied, without prejudice. (ECF Nos. 3, 12, 15, 20, 47, 48, 50, 51.)

26

As Plaintiff is well aware, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this

27

action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any

28

attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District
1

1

Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional

2

circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section

3

1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek

4
5

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

6

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

7

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

8

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s likelihood

9
10

of success on the merits and the ability of the Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

11

complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

12

1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff has not demonstrated new or

13

different circumstances to merit appointment of counsel in this case. Circumstances common to most

14

prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional

15

circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Although Plaintiff

16

attaches medical documents to his request which indicate that he suffers from depression and post-

17

traumatic stress disorder, it is apparent that Plaintiff is being evaluated and treated for such condition.

18

A review of the record reflects that Plaintiff is articulate and able to comply with court orders, as well

19

as file pro se motions. In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff’s reasons for requesting appointment of

20

counsel indistinguishable from the reasons asserted by most prisoners. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s sixth

21

motion for appointment of counsel is be DENIED without prejudice.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:

26

October 31, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2