McRae v. Dikran et al
ORDER DENYING 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/9/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1:16-cv-01066 GSA (PC)
MICHAEL SCOTT MCRAE,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
BAIRAMIAN DIKRAN, et al.,
On November 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion 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.
“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).
In determining whether
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this
early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to
succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed on March 28, 2017, for failure to
state a claim with leave to amend, and his First Amended Complaint, filed on May 1, 2017,
awaits screening by the court. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) To date, the court has not found any cognizable
claims in plaintiff’s complaints for which to initiate service of process, and no other parties have
yet appeared. Plaintiff’s medical claims are not complex. Moreover, based on a review of the
record in this case, the court finds that plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. Therefore,
plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 9, 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?