Michael Jacobsen v. Pool
Filing
24
ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 23 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/14/2018. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL JACOBSEN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
Case No. 1:16-cv-01760-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
v.
(ECF No. 23)
POOL,
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff Michael Jacobsen (“Plaintiff”) is a county detainee 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 November 21, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On September 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a first
20
amended complaint, (ECF No. 16), and on October 5, 2017, Plaintiff lodged a second amended
21
complaint, (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened.
22
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed February
23
9, 2018. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff states that this action states a claim for excessive force and his
24
complaint has passed the screening process and is now in the discovery phase. Plaintiff states that
25
due to his lack of education and experience with the judicial system, he will not be able to
26
conduct discovery through the taking of depositions or navigate more complicated discovery
27
issues such as motions for sanctions. Plaintiff further argues that he cannot get any discovery
28
from Defendant because any requests he attempts get objected to and denied by defense counsel.
1
1
(Id.)
2
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
3
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954
4
n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28
5
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298
6
(1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary
7
assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
8
9
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
10
“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on
11
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
12
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, but does not
13
14
find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed
15
in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief,
16
his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed by prisoners proceeding
17
pro se and in forma pauperis almost daily. These prisoners also must conduct legal research,
18
prosecute claims, and conduct discovery without the assistance of counsel.
19
Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that
20
Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. It appears that Plaintiff has mistakenly filed this
21
motion in the instant action. The filed first amended complaint and lodged second amended
22
complaint both allege violations of Plaintiff’s property rights, but do not contain allegations of
23
excessive force by Defendant Pool. Moreover, the Court has not screened either of the amended
24
complaints, and discovery has not yet opened in this action. Thus, the case does not yet proceed
25
on any cognizable claims. Also, based on a review of the limited record in this case, the Court
26
does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.
27
///
28
///
2
1
2
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 23) is DENIED,
without prejudice.
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
February 14, 2018
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?