Warrior v. Santiago et al

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/11/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

1:16-cv-01504-GSA-PC

MARVELLOUS AFRIKAN WARRIOR,
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

vs.
JESSICA SANTIAGO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On October 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action and requested

18

the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 1 at 5 ¶A.) Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right

19

to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and

20

the court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

21

Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298

22

(1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary

23

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 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

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success

27

of 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.

2

Plaintiff’s case stems from allegations that defendants violated his due process rights when they

3

conspired to harass and steal from him, out of retaliation. Plaintiff requests monetary damages

4

and declaratory and injunctive relief. At this early stage of the proceedings, the court cannot

5

make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Moreover, based on

6

Plaintiff’s complaint, it appears that he is able to adequately articulate his claims. Id. Even if it

7

is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations

8

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case does not appear exceptional. Therefore,

9

Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of

10
11
12

the proceedings.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of
counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 11, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2