Matthew V. Salinas v. Pogue et al

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 55 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/17/2018: Motion is DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

1:16-cv-00520- DAD- GSA (PC)

MATTHEW V. SALINAS,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.

(Document# 55)

KENNETH J. POGUE, et al,
Defendants.

16
17

On May 14, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff

18

does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113

19

F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff

20

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern

21

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989).

22

exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

23

section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

24

However, in certain

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

25

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

26

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of

27

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

28

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
1

In determining whether

1

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this

2

stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on

3

the merits. While service of process is ongoing, the defendants have not been served, nor have they

4

appeared in the case. Plaintiff asserts that he is unable to afford counsel, and his imprisonment will

5

greatly limit his ability to litigate this case without assistance. These are not exceptional

6

circumstances. Based on the record in this case, the court finds that plaintiff can adequately articulate

7

his claims and respond to court orders. Further, the legal issue in this case -- whether plaintiff’s rights

8

under the ADA were violated -- does not appear complex. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion shall be

9

denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

10
11

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 17, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2