Doster v. Beard et al
ORDER DENYING 30 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/13/2016. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAMIEN T. DOSTER,
P. LLAMAS, et al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
On October 11, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland,
113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), 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.
In determining whether
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
complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.
Plaintiff argues that he is unskilled in the law, cannot afford to retain an attorney, has a
meritorious case, and has been denied relevant evidence by Defendants. This does not make
Plaintiff’s case exceptional under the law. At this stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make
a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Defendants= motion for summary
judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is now pending and may dispose of most
of Plaintiff’s claims. Moreover, based on the record in this case, the court does not find that
plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Further, the legal issues in this case, concerning
conditions of confinement, are not complex. Therefore, plaintiff=s motion shall be denied without
prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 13, 2016
/s/ Gary S. Austin
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?