Turner v. Porter et al
ORDER DENYING 14 and 17 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 05/31/17. (Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF Nos. 14, 17.)
M. PORTER, et al.,
On April 7, 2017, and May 22, 2017, plaintiff filed motions seeking the appointment of
counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to
represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, 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.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
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
stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed
on the merits. While the court has found that “[l]iberally construed, Plaintiff states a cognizable
claim against defendant Ramirez for violation of due process,” this finding is not a determination
that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. (ECF No. 11 at 8-9.) Plaintiff’s due process
claim does not appear complex, and based on a review of the record in this case, it appears that
Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims.
without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. For the foregoing
Therefore, plaintiff=s motion shall be denied
reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 31, 2017
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?