Grant v. Lewis et al
ORDER GRANTING 25 Plaintiff's First Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to Findings and Recommendations and ORDER DENYING 25 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/14/2017. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TRAVARE MONROE GRANT,
J. LEWIS, et al.,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE
OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '
1983. On September 13, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to file objections to the
findings and recommendations which issued on August 30, 2017. In that same motion, Plaintiff
requested appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to
represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in
certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel
pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even
if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations
which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with
similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make
a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits and, based on a review of the
record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel, in his motion
filed on September 13, 2017 (Doc. 25), is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice; but good cause
exists for the extension of time Plaintiff seeks and he is granted thirty (30) days from the date of
service of this order in which to file objections to the pending findings and recommendations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 14, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?