Thornton v. Grissom et al

Filing 23

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Appointment of Counsel 14 , 17 , 21 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/8/16. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SIMON THORNTON,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD L. GRISSOM, et al.,

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-0498-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
(ECF NOS. 14, 17, 21)

Defendants.

16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
18
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending are three motions to appoint
19
counsel. (ECF Nos. 14, 17, and 21.) In these motions, Plaintiff contends that he is
20
unable to proceed without representation because he is indigent, his imprisonment will
21
affect his ability to litigate, and he is unversed in the law. In one of the motions (ECF No.
22
17), he also claims to be a mental health patient with severe mental health issues as well
23
as learning disabilities.
24
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,
25
26
27
28

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,

1

1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the

2

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

3

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

4

will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In

5

determining whether Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate

6

both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate

7

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal

8

quotation marks and citations omitted).

9

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional

10

circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that

11

he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is

12

not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early

13

stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to

14

succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does

15

not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Lastly, while Plaintiff implies

16

that his status as a mental health patient entitles him to counsel, he has submitted no

17

medical records in support of his motion, and he does not indicate how his mental health

18

issues affect his understanding of the legal issues in this case or his ability to effectively

19
20
21
22

prosecute his claims.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motions for the appointment of counsel (ECF
Nos. 14, 17, and 21) are HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated:

November 8, 2016

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2