Turner v. Administrative Security Personell, et al.

Filing 8

ORDER denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/4/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEMAREALE TURNER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
ADMINISTRATIVE SECURITY
PERSONELL, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

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

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01643-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 3]

Plaintiff Edwin Garcia 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 October 31,

20
21

2016. Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel because he is a participant in the mental health

22

program and needs assistance in litigating this action.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at

28

1525.
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).
The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s likelihood

6
7

of success on the merits and the ability of the Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

8

complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

9

1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most

10

prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional

11

circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Furthermore,

12

participation in the mental health program, alone, does not present exceptional circumstances. In the

13

present case, the Court has yet to screen Plaintiff’s complaint and based on a cursory review of the

14

complaint, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

15

motion for appointment of counsel will be DENIED without prejudice.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:

19

November 4, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2