Gradford v. McDougall et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying 36 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/5/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
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-00201-DAD-GSA (PC) WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. (Document# 36) Mc DOUGALL, et al., Defendants. 16 17 On April 2, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff 18 does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 19 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 21 District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain 22 exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 23 section 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. In determining whether 26 Aexceptional 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 28 complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 1 1 In the present case, Plaintiff argues that he fears retaliation, has physical and mental 2 disabilities, and is not trained in the law. This alone does not make Plaintiff’s case exceptional. 3 While the Court has found that Plaintiff’s complaint states claims under § 1983 against 4 defendants Tiexiera and McCarthy for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment,” this 5 finding is not a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. (ECF No. 19 at 6 7 8 9 1:22-24.) Plaintiff’s retaliation claims do not appear complex, and based on a review of the record in this case, it appears that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims and respond to court orders. Thus, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances, and Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 10 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 11 DENIED, without prejudice. 12 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 5, 2018 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?