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)

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