Estrada v. Macias et al

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/25/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID ESTRADA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
TERESA MACIS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

19

Case No.: 1:15-cv-001292-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
[ECF No. 20]

Plaintiff David Estrada is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1983.
On January 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. There is no

20

constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th

21

Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

22

1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296,

23

298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
1

1

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

2

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the Court does find that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional

3
4

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th

5

Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim

6

of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and the legal issues present in this action are not

7

complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint.
While a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se

8
9

litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative

10

complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of

11

counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28

12

U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner

13

“may well have fared better-particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert

14

testimony.”) Based on the record in this case, Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims and litigate this

15

action. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of financial resources, lack of legal

16

education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would

17

warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff motion for appointment

18

of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:

22

January 25, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2