Hilson v. Arnett et al

Filing 42

ORDER DENYING 39 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/5/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RASHEED HILSON, Sr.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
JESSE ARNETT,

1:15-cv-01240-DAD-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 39)

Defendant.

16
17

On March 20, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

18

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,

19

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an

20

attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United

21

States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

22

certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of

23

counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a

24

reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer

25

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

26

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of

27

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

28

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and
1

1

citations omitted).

2

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional

3

circumstances. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he

4

has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not

5

exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early

6

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

7

succeed on the merits. Finally, although Plaintiff states that he is required to devote

8

substantial time and effort to his mental health needs, based on a review of the record in

9

this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

10

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is

11

HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14

Dated:

May 5, 2017

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Michael J. Seng

2