Garrett v. Igbinosa

Filing 67

ORDER Denying 55 66 Motions to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 01/31/2019. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JAMES JAMIL GARRETT,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 1:16-cv-00259-JLO-JDP
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
DR. NGOZI IGBINOSA,

ECF Nos. 55, 66

Defendant.

14
15

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s second and third motions seeking the

16

appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 55, 66. Plaintiff James Jamil Garrett is proceeding without

17

counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He states that appointment

18

of counsel is necessary because the case is complex and he lacks the mental capacity to

19

prosecute the case effectively. Plaintiff’s first motion seeking the appointment of counsel

20

made similar allegations, ECF No. 42, and was denied, ECF No. 43.

21

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

22

v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g

23

en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney

24

to represent plaintiff, see Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490

25

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28

26

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to

27

afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel,

28

the court will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining

1

1

whether such circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of

2

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

3

the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks

4

and citations omitted).
Exceptional circumstances requiring the recruitment of counsel are not present here. The

5
6

court is currently reviewing defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which has been fully

7

briefed by the parties. It is not apparent that plaintiff is unable to articulate his claims

8

adequately, even though the issues are somewhat complex. Further, plaintiff has not

9

demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits.
The court may later revisit this issue if the interests of justice so require. If plaintiff later

10
11

renews his request for counsel, he should provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances

12

that he believes justify appointment of counsel
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 55, 66, are

13
14

denied without prejudice.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
Dated:

January 31, 2019

18

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21

No. 204

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

`