Ricks v. Austria et al

Filing 7

ORDER Denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/30/15. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT K. RICKS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
A. AUSTRIA, et al.,

1:15-cv-01147-GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Document# 3)

Defendants.

16
17

On July 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff

18

does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113

19

F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff

20

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern

21

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989).

22

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

23

section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

24
25
26
27
28

However, in certain

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

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
of 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).
1

1

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this

2

early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to

3

succeed on the merits. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on July 24, 2015, less than a week ago, and

4

the Complaint awaits the court=s screening required under 28 U.S.C. 1915. Thus, to date the court

5

has not found any cognizable claims in Plaintiff=s Complaint for which to initiate service of

6

process, and no other parties have yet appeared. Moreover, based on a review of the record in

7

this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Therefore,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff=s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the
proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 30, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2