Mario Molina v. Holland et al
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 57 Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/28/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:15-cv-01260-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO
(ECF NO. 57)
K. HOLLAND, et al.,
Mario Molina (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 57).
Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel, because
he is visually impaired, because he has limited knowledge of the law, because he has limited
ability to speak and understand English, because he has no ability to investigate the facts of this
case, because this case will likely involve expert witnesses, because this case will involve
conflicting testimony, and because the issues involved in this case are extremely complex.
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952
(9th Cir. 1998), 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.
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
In determining whether
complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has
reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court cannot make a determination that
Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, based on the record in this
case, it appears that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims.
Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing the motion for appointment of
pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro
bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 28, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?