Cochran v. Sherman et al

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 39 and 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel, without prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 07/24/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

BILLY COY COCHRAN,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

v.
S, SHERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01388-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
SEEKING THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF Nos. 18, 39)

16

Plaintiff Billy Cochran is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against

18

Defendants S. Sherman and J. Barba, officials employed at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility

19

and State Prison, Corcoran (“SATF”) for the violation of his First Amendment rights based upon the

20

denial of his name change for religious purposes.

21

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

This matter was referred to a United States

22

On October 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting accommodations by persons with

23

disabilities. (ECF No. 18.) The specific accommodation requested is the appointment of counsel, on

24

the basis of post-traumatic stress, depression, substance abuse dependence, anti-social personality

25

disorder, and gender dysphoria.

26

On June 5, 2017, Plaintiff renewed his motion requesting the appointment of counsel, on the

27

basis that he is not trained in the law, cannot afford counsel, suffers from the above-listed disabilities,

28

is hindered as an inmate, and due to the novelty and complexity of his claim. (ECF No. 39.)
1

1

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action. Rand v.

2

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 n.1

3

(9th Cir. 1998). The Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

4

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

5

298, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances, the Court may

6

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

7

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

8

counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

9

circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and]

10

the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

11

involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

12

In determining whether “exceptional

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

13

Plaintiff has not identified any circumstances warranting appointment of counsel.

14

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

15

proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases

16

almost daily from indigent prisoners proceeding without representation. Further, although the Court

17

has found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff

18

is likely to succeed on the merits. Additionally, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court

19

finds that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims in his current mental health condition.

20
21

Even if it is

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s requests for the appointment of counsel are HEREBY DENIED,
without prejudice.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 24, 2017

/s/ Barbara

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2