Cochran v. Aguirre, et al.

Filing 97

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Eighth 96 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 06/02/2017. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 BILLY COY COCHRAN, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 v. E. AGUIRRE, 11 Defendant. 12 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [ECF No. 96] 13 Plaintiff Billy Coy Cochran is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 14 15 § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s eighth motion for appointment of counsel, filed June 1, 16 17 18 2017. As Plaintiff is well aware, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this 19 action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any 20 attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District 21 Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 22 circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 23 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 24 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 25 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 26 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the 27 merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 28 legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 1 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s likelihood 1 2 of success on the merits and the ability of the Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 3 complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 4 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). The Court has previously denied 5 Plaintiff’s requests because he failed to show exceptional circumstances to justify appoint of counsel. 6 Plaintiff has not demonstrated new or different circumstances to merit appointment of counsel in his 7 present motion. Indeed, Plaintiff is making the same arguments previously presented and considered 8 by the Court. However, Plaintiff attaches a copy of the proposed third amended complaint which was 9 stricken by the Court, which bears no relevance to a request for appointment of counsel. 10 Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library 11 access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary 12 assistance of counsel. Plaintiff must focus on litigating this case rather than making numerous 13 requests for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has been advised of the standard necessary for 14 appointment of counsel. The Court has limited resources in appointing counsel to Plaintiffs who meet 15 this standard. In some cases, even when the standard is accomplished there are no available counsel to 16 accept these cases since these counsel are only those willing to accept cases pro bono. Plaintiff has 17 failed to meet the standard, despite numerous admonishments and advisements by the court. The 18 Court finds Plaintiff’s reasons for requesting appointment of counsel indistinguishable from the 19 reasons asserted by most prisoners. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s eighth motion for appointment of counsel 20 is be DENIED without prejudice. 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 2, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?