Abreu v. Jaime et al
Filing
12
ORDER Denying 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 06/30/2016. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ARMANDO ABREU,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
G. JAIME, et al.,
15
16
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:16-CV-00715-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
(ECF No. 11)
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff Armando Abreu (“Plaintiff”) is state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking the appointment of pro
bono counsel. (ECF No. 11.) In Plaintiff’s motion, he asserts that he has no physical access to the law
21
library, and he has alerted prison officials to the issue and sought assistance. He further argues his case
22
involves serious safety and gang issues, and that his claims are meritorious, complex, and of great
23
magnitude. He notes his pro se status and need for pro bono assistance.
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this civil 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
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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 “exceptional 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).
8
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is
9
assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if
10
proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination
that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the
court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 11) is
HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
June 30, 2016
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?