Jacobs v. CSR Reps et al
Filing
11
ORDER DENYING 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/30/2016. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GEORGE E. JACOBS,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
CSR REPS, et al.,
1:16-cv-00791-DAD-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Document# 10)
Defendants.
16
17
On August 17, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
18
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,
19
Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an
20
attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United
21
States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In
22
certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of
23
counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a
24
reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer
25
counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
26
Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of
27
28
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
1
1
citations omitted).
2
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional
3
circumstances. Plaintiff requests the assistance of an attorney because an injury to his
4
arm prevents him from writing or typing properly. This circumstance alone does not
5
warrant a request for volunteer counsel. Plaintiff has thus far has proceeded with non-
6
legal assistance from within his institution.
7
Furthermore, even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and
8
that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case
9
is not exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. At this stage in the
10
proceedings, Plaintiff’s complaint has been dismissed with leave to amend and there is
11
no operative pleading. The court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to
12
succeed on the merits. And, based on a review of the record in this case, the court does
13
14
15
16
not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is
HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
Dated:
August 30, 2016
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Michael J. Seng
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?