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)

Download PDF
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

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?