Petillo v. Peterson et al
ORDER DENYING 51 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/10/18. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ISAIAH JOEL PETILLO,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 51)
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 09, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
(ECF No. 51.)
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 (1989). 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. However, 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
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, even though
the issues are complex, the court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate
his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is
HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 10, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Michael J. Seng
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?