Ricks v. Levine, et al.

Filing 72

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Fourth 71 Motion Requesting the Appointment of Counsel, without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 04/04/2018. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

SCOTT K. RICKS,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13

v.
G. LEVINE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01150-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH
MOTION REQUESTING THE
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
[ECF No. 71]

14
15
16
17

Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s fourth motion requesting the appointment of

18

counsel, filed on March 27, 2018. (ECF No. 71.) In support of his request for counsel, Plaintiff

19

declares that he is unable to afford counsel, his imprisonment limits his ability to litigate, that his

20

claim is complex, and that he has no access to legal resources. Plaintiff also states that he has

21

medical conditions, including epilepsy and a seizure disorder, that he is permanently physically

22

disabled, and that he receives mental health services. Plaintiff has sought counsel, to no avail.

23

As Plaintiff has been previously informed, he does not have a constitutional right to

24

appointed counsel in this civil action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997),

25

and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

26

Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109

27

S. Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request

28

the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
1

1

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

6

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even

7

if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious

8

allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is

9

faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot

10

find any likelihood of success on the merits. The Court has recently recommended that summary

11

judgment be granted in favor of all Defendants in this action, and those findings and

12

recommendations are pending. Also, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does

13

not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Plaintiff’s filings are clear and

14

understandable, and he has been able to comply with the Court’s orders. Thus, the Court does not

15

find this to be a serious and exceptional case necessitating the appointment of counsel.

16
17

Accordingly it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s fourth motion seeking the
appointment of counsel, filed on March 27, 2018 (ECF No. 71) is denied, without prejudice.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 4, 2018

21

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2