Toscano v. California Department of Corrections, et al.

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel, Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/18/16. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

BENJAMIN K. TOSCANO,

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:16-cv-01551-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
REQUESTING THE APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF No. 3)

16
17

Plaintiff Benjamin K. Toscano (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this

19

action on October 3, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

20

California. (ECF No. 1). This action was subsequently transferred to this district court on

21

October 14, 2016. (ECF No. 5.)

22

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed on

23

October 3, 2016. (ECF No. 3.) In support, Plaintiff states that he is unable to afford counsel, and

24

he cites some legal authorities.

25

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this civil action,

26

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

27

to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court

28

for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in
1

1

certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

2

pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing

3

and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and

4

exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court

5

must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to

6

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal

7

quotation marks and citations omitted).

8
9

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even
if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious

10

allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is

11

faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court

12

cannot find any likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been

13

screened as required, and thus the case does not yet proceed on any cognizable claims. Also,

14

based on a review of the limited record in this case, the court does not find that Plaintiff cannot

15

adequately articulate his claims. Thus, the Court does not find this to be a serious and

16

exceptional case necessitating the appointment of counsel at this time.

17
18

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED, without prejudice.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 18, 2016

22

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2