Thornton v. Grissom et al

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 42 48 Motions to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/25/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
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. 1:16-cv-00498-AWI-MJS (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF Nos. 42, 48) D. GRISSOM, et al., Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Pending now are Plaintiff’s sixth and seventh 19 requests for the appointment of counsel. For the reasons set forth here and in the rulings 20 on his five early requests, these motions will be denied. 21 As Plaintiff has repeatedly been informed, he does not have a constitutional right 22 to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 23 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 24 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of 25 Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). 26 27 28 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 1 1 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In 2 determining whether Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate 3 both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate 4 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal 5 quotation marks and citations omitted). 6 In the present case, the undersigned again fails to find the required exceptional 7 circumstances. Even if it is assumed, as Plaintiff continues to claim, that he is not well 8 versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would 9 entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases 10 almost daily. Further, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to 11 succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does 12 not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. 13 14 15 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. 16 17 Dated: October 25, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Michael J. Seng 2

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?