Ricks v. Levine, et al.
Filing
7
ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 3 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/27/15: Motion is DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
1:15-cv-01150 BAM (PC)
SCOTT K. RICKS,
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
v.
(ECF No. 3)
G. LEVINE, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the
appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this
action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an
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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989).
However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of
counsel pursuant to section 1915(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
Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on
1
1
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
2
complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
3
Here, Plaintiff moves for the appointment of counsel because (1) he is unable to afford
4
counsel; (2) his imprisonment will limit his ability to litigate; (3) he has no legal training; (4) he is
5
no longer housed at the prison where the incident took place; (5) he is severely mentally and
6
physically disabled; (6) trial likely will involve conflicting testimony; and (7) he has made
7
repeated attempts to secure counsel. Having considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, the Court does
8
not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s assertions of physical and mental
9
disabilities are unsupported by any medical records. Additionally, even if it is assumed that
10
Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved,
11
would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases
12
alleging Eighth Amendment violations almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the
13
proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the
14
merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff
15
16
17
18
cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
July 27, 2015
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. McAuliffe
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?