Patrick v. Reynaga et al
Filing
28
ORDER Denying 23 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/11/17. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
NICHOLAS PATRICK,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
RENAGA, et al.,
15
1:16-cv-00239-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Document# 23)
Defendant.
16
17
On October 17, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
18
As Plaintiff already has been advised, he does not have a constitutional right to
19
appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997),
20
and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '
21
1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490
22
U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the
23
voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
24
However, without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court
25
will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In
26
determining whether Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate
27
both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate
28
his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal
1
1
quotation marks and citations omitted).
2
The Court reiterates that it does not find the required exceptional circumstances in
3
the instant case. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that
4
he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is
5
not exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early
6
stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to
7
succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does
8
not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s
9
statement that he is overburdened by prosecuting multiple actions does not, in itself,
10
present an exceptional circumstance. Again, the Court is faced with similar litigants
11
almost daily.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Lastly, the Court notes that Plaintiff includes in his motion a request for counsel in
a separate action, Patrick v. Petroff, No. 1:16-cv-00945-AWI-MJS. Plaintiff is advised
that he must file any such requests in that action. The Court will not address here
requests that do not pertain to this case.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is
HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
Dated:
January 11, 2017
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Michael J. Seng
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?