Dawson v. Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 61

ORDER DENYING Request for Appointment of Counsel 58 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/19/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ISAAC DA’BOUR DAWSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:15-cv-01867-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 58.)

CDCR, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Issac Da’bour Dawson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 18, 2017,

21

Plaintiff requested court assistance to obtain a lawyer to represent him in this case. (ECF No.

22

58.)

23

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

24

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

25

represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court

26

for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional

27

circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section

28

1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

6

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At

7

this stage of the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to

8

succeed on the merits. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss some of the claims against

9

them, which is pending and may result in the dismissal of claims. Plaintiff’s claims, arising

10

from allegations of improper strip searches and retaliation, do not appear complex. Moreover,

11

based on the court’s record, Plaintiff is able to adequately articulate his claims. Therefore,

12

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel shall be denied. Plaintiff is advised that he is not

13

precluded from renewing the motion for appointment of counsel at a later stage of the

14

proceedings.

15
16

Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request
for the appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 19, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2