Cramblit v California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, et al

Filing 28

ORDER Denying 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/28/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES CRAMBLIT,

12
13
14
15
16

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

17
18
19
20
21
22

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

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00058-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
[ECF No. 17]

Plaintiff James Cramblit is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 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 September
26, 2017.

23

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d

24

1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to

25

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490

26

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the

27

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

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). This action is proceeding on a

9

claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act for exclusion of a job position based solely on his

10

disability, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint. Plaintiff contends

11

that his classification as a participant in the Developmental Disability Program has rendered him

12

unable to effectively prosecute this action. While Plaintiff has presented documentation that he is a

13

participant in the Developmental Disability Program, the Court does not find that the exceptional

14

factors necessary to justify appointment of counsel exist in this case, at the present time.

15

Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library

16

access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary

17

assistance of counsel. In addition, Plaintiff’s current motion demonstrates that Plaintiff understands

18

the process and how to file documents. The record in this case demonstrates sufficient writing ability

19

and legal knowledge to articulate the claims asserted, even if such filings are done with the assistance

20

of other inmates and/or prison officials. In addition, the likelihood of success on the merits is not yet

21

clear at this stage of the proceedings. While a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance

22

of counsel, so long as a pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims

23

against the relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require

24

the appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of

25

discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact

26

that pro se prisoner

27

///

28

///
2

1

“may well have fared better-particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert

2

testimony.”)

3

prejudice.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied, without

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:

7

September 28, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3