Hernandez v. Kokor et al

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 3 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/1/16: 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

MARINO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
WINFRED M. KOKOR, et al.,

1:16-cv-00716-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 3)

Defendant.

16
17
18

On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff Marino Antonio Hernandez filed a motion seeking the
appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3)

19

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,

20

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an

21

attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United

22

States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

23

certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of

24

counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a

25

reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer

26

counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

27

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

28

In determining whether

success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in
1

1

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and

2

citations omitted).

3

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional

4

circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that

5

he has made serious allegations which, if proven, would entitle him to relief, his case is

6

not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early

7

stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to

8

succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does

9

not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

10
11

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

12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14

Dated:

June 1, 2016

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Michael J. Seng

2