Quiroga v. Chapa

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 26 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/14/2016. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONICO J. QUIROGA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
C. CHAPA,

15

Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-00071-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 26]

Plaintiff is currently a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983. At the time Plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he was a

19

pretrial detainee. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United

20

States Magistrate Judge on February 16, 2016. Local Rule 302.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed November

21
22

10, 2016. Plaintiff seeks appoint of counsel to assist him in litigating this matter.

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 any attorney to represent

25

plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern

26

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

27

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

28

1525.
1

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

1
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 on the

4

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

5

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

6

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it

7

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

8

proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. Plaintiff alleges that he was sexually

9

assault in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The legal issues present in this action are not

10

complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint. However, at this early

11

stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on

12

the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that plaintiff

13

cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

14
15

DENIED.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:

19

November 14, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2