Quiroga v. Youngblood, et al.
ORDER DENYING 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/9/2017. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MONICO J. QUIROGA, III,
DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, et al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 3)
Plaintiff Monico J. Quiroga, III (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 3, 2017, Plaintiff
filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.)
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to
represent Plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain
exceptional circumstances, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under
section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
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
Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.
Plaintiff states that counsel should be appointed in this case because the issues are particularly
complex, his only education is a G.E.D., he cannot understand legal terms, and that his only way
to write is by hand. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has
made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional.
This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Furthermore, at this early stage in the
proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the
merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff
cannot adequately articulate his claims. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 9, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?