Thornton v. Grissom et al
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 42 48 Motions to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/25/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF Nos. 42, 48)
D. GRISSOM, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Pending now are Plaintiff’s sixth and seventh
requests for the appointment of counsel. For the reasons set forth here and in the rulings
on his five early requests, these motions will be denied.
As Plaintiff has repeatedly been informed, he 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 Aexceptional 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 undersigned again fails to find the required exceptional
circumstances. Even if it is assumed, as Plaintiff continues to claim, that he 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, 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motions for
the appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 42, 48) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 25, 2017
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?