Cortinas v. Huerta et al

Filing 73

ORDER DENYING 72 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/19/2020. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

1:17-cv-00130-AWI-GSA (PC)

LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS,
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.

(Document# 72)

M. HUERTA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On November 12, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional

22

circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section

23

1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

24

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek

25

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

26

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of

27

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity

28

of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
1

In determining whether

1

In the present case, Plaintiff appears to seek counsel to assist him with defense of a motion

2

for summary judgment. He complains that Defendants have wrongly stated that Plaintiff failed to

3

exhaust his remedies. These conditions do not make Plaintiff’s case exceptional. At this stage of

4

the proceedings, the court cannot find that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. While the

5

court has found that the court finds that “Plaintiff states cognizable claims in the Complaint against

6
7
8
9

defendants Huerta and Scalia for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and
against defendant Scalia for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment,” these findings are not
a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. (ECF No. 9 at 11:16-19.) The legal
issues in this case --whether defendants used excessive force against plaintiff and retaliated against
him -- are not complex. Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case, the court finds that

10
plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. Thus, the court does not find the required exceptional
11
12
13
14

circumstances, and Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at
a later stage of the proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 19, 2020

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2