Allred v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/1/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ) et al., ) Defendants. ) JESSE D. ALLRED, Case No.: 1:16-cv-01571-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [ECF No. 21] Plaintiff Jesse D. Allred is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed August 31, 20 2017. Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel to assist him in litigating this action and with service 21 of process on unserved Defendants. 22 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 23 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 25 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the 26 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 27 28 1 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 1 2 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 3 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the 4 merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 5 legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In the present case, the Court does find that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional 6 7 circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th 8 Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Circumstances common to most 9 prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional 10 circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. While a pro se litigant 11 may be better served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this 12 instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the 13 “exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand v. 14 Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district 15 court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better- 16 particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert testimony.”) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 17 motion for appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: 21 September 1, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?