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)

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