Jones v. Schwartznegger et al

Filing 26

ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 25 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/10/16: Motion is DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EDWARD DAVID JONES,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
SCHWARTZNEGGER, et al.,

1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 25)

Defendant.

16
17

On October 28, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave

18

to amend. (ECF No. 23). On November 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking the

19

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 25).

20

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

21

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to

22

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

23

the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in

24

certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

25

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

26

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

27

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

In determining whether

28

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with

6

similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make

7

a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the

8

record in this case, the court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.

9

Id.

10
11

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED without prejudice.

12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

November 10, 2016

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A. McAuliffe

2