Eha v. The People of the State of California
Filing
10
ORDER denying 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/30/2015. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
DAVID RYAN EHA,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01112-BAM-PC
7
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff,
8
v.
(ECF NO. 9)
9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Plaintiff Eha is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On October 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No.
9.) Plaintiff has not previously sought the appointment of counsel.
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
28
1
1 the required exceptional circumstances. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987);
2 Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of
3 unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The issues in this case are not complex, and Plaintiff
4 has thoroughly set forth his arguments in the complaint filed in this action. Plaintiff’s sole
5 argument is that he is indigent and cannot afford counsel. In forma pauperis status alone does
6 not alone entitle Plaintiff to appointed counsel.
7
So long as a pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his
8 claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which
9 might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse
10 of discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite
11 fact that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better – particularly in the realm of discovery and
12 the securing of expert testimony.”) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
13 motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
October 30, 2015
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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?