Scally v. Arsaunt et al

Filing 32

ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 30 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/5/17: 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

TONY EUGENE SCALLY,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

N. ARSAUNT,

15

1:16-cv-01237 AWI MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 30)

Defendant.

16
17

On August 28, 2017, 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.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a reasonable method of

24

securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in the

25

most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether Aexceptional circumstances

26

exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits [and]

27
28

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).
1

1

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

2

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

3

has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not

4

exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this stage in

5

the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed

6

on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find

7

that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

8
9

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

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12

Dated:

September 5, 2017

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Michael J. Seng

2