Silva v. Worth et al

Filing 50

ORDER DENYING without prejudice 49 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/12/19. (Response to OSC due 14-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY SILVA,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

1:16-cv-01131 LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Doc. 49)

J. WORTH,
Defendant.

Fourteen (14) Day Deadline

16
17

On February 7, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

18

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland,

19

113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent

20

plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the

21

Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional

22

circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section

23

1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

24

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek

25

volunteer 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 success of

27

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

28

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
1

1

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even

2

if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations

3

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with

4

similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a

5

determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record

6

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 is HEREBY

7
8

DENIED, without prejudice. As Plaintiff may have been waiting for an order on his motion to

9

appoint counsel before preparing a response to the pending order to show cause, Plaintiff is

10

granted a fourteen (14) day extension of time from the date of service of this order to file a

11

response to the order to show cause that issued on January 14, 2019, (Doc. 46).

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 12, 2019

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Sheila K. Oberto

2

.