Turner v. Porter et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING 14 and 17 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 05/31/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 -542 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 1:16-cv-00542-GSA (PC) DEDRIC TURNER, Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. (ECF Nos. 14, 17.) M. PORTER, et al., Defendants. 17 18 On April 7, 2017, and May 22, 2017, plaintiff filed motions seeking the appointment of 19 counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 20 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to 21 represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for 22 the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in 23 certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel 24 pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 25 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 26 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 27 Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 28 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 1 1 2 complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this 3 stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed 4 on the merits. While the court has found that “[l]iberally construed, Plaintiff states a cognizable 5 claim against defendant Ramirez for violation of due process,” this finding is not a determination 6 that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. (ECF No. 11 at 8-9.) Plaintiff’s due process 7 claim does not appear complex, and based on a review of the record in this case, it appears that 8 Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. 9 without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. For the foregoing Therefore, plaintiff=s motion shall be denied 10 reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without 11 prejudice. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 31, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?