King v. Holland et al

Filing 36

ORDER DENYING 34 Plaintiff's Third Motion to Appoint Counsel Without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/12/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RASHAD KING,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:15-cv-01885-BAM (PC)

v.
S. HOLLAND, et al.,

15

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF No. 34)

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Rashad King (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on

19

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Duncan, Holland, Solis, and Tingley.1
On July 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel, asserting that he is an

20
21

indigent state prisoner with limited access to legal materials and no meaningful attorney access,

22

other than some limited access to “jailhouse lawyers.” He also asserted that he is a layman at the

23

law, with a limited education. (ECF No. 10.) The Court denied his motion on July 12, 2016,

24

finding that the matter did not present exceptional circumstances. (ECF No. 11.)
On December 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF

25
26

No. 19.) On December 28, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s second motion, again finding that

27
1

28

Defendant Solis has not yet been served with the summons and complaint in this matter. Service by the United States Marshal
was returned unexecuted for the second time on April 10, 2017. The Court will address this matter by separate order.

1

1

the matter did not present exceptional circumstances. (ECF No. 20.) On April 10, 2017, Plaintiff

2

filed the instant motion requesting appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 34.)

3

I.

4

As Plaintiff was previously informed, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed

5

counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), reversed in part on

6

other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to

7

represent Plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of

8

Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional

9

circumstances, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under section

10

Legal Standard

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

II.

Discussion

17

In the instant motion, Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel for the following

18

reasons: (1) Plaintiff is unable to afford counsel; (2) the issues involved in this case are complex;

19

(3) Plaintiff wrote letters to numerous attorneys but none have responded; and (4) Plaintiff has

20

limited knowledge of the law. (ECF No. 34.)
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s renewed motion for the appointment of counsel, but

21
22

again does not find the required exceptional circumstances. As previously indicated, Plaintiff’s

23

indigent circumstances, the complexity of the case, and Plaintiff’s limited knowledge of the law

24

do not make his case exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases, particularly those

25

involving allegations of excessive force, almost daily. Plaintiff has provided no new

26

considerations or changed circumstances indicating that he is unable to proceed in this matter

27

without the assistance of counsel.

28

///
2

1

Moreover, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination

2

that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and upon reviewing the record, the Court does not

3

find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, if

4

Plaintiff requires additional time to comply with relevant deadlines and court orders due to his

5

limited education, complexities of the case or other circumstances, then he may seek appropriate

6

extensions of time.

7
8

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED,
without prejudice.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 12, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3