Holguin v. Wicks

Filing 54

ORDER DENYING 51 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/3/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

PABLO HOLGUIN,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:16-cv-00346-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL

v.
(ECF No. 51)
R. WICKS,

14

Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff Pablo Holguin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17

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

18

Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendant Wicks based on the

19

alleged denial of Plaintiff’s right to call an identified witness in his defense at his prison

20

disciplinary hearing.

21

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, filed December 28,

22

2017. (ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel due to the complexity of the case,

23

the attorney general’s unlimited legal resources, and Plaintiff’s limitations as an incarcerated pro

24

se litigant. Plaintiff further argues that his access to the prison law library is irregular and

25

infrequent at best, and the library contains only four legal research computers and two photo

26

copiers. (Id.)

27
28

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954
1

1

n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28

2

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298

3

(1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary

4

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, but does not

10
11

find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed

12

in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief,

13

his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed by prisoners proceeding

14

pro se and in forma pauperis almost daily. These prisoners also must conduct legal research and

15

prosecute claims without the assistance of counsel.

16

Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that

17

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Although the Court has found that Plaintiff has stated

18

a cognizable claim against Defendant Wicks, the fact that Plaintiff has passed this low bar has not

19

yet shown the Court that he is likely to succeed on the merits. Also, based on a review of the

20

limited record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his

21

claims.

22
23

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 51) is DENIED,
without prejudice.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 3, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2