Carter v. Voong, et al.

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/11/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

DOMINIC CARTER,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.

1:17-cv-00245-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO
COUNSEL
(ECF NO. 9)

H. FLORES, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Dominic Carter (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

20

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice, which included,

21

among other things, a request for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 9).

22
23

Plaintiff asks for “appointment of civil counsel, to assist Plaintiff with his claim.”
Plaintiff provides no explanation as to why he needs counsel.

24

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

25

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952

26

(9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28

27

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

28

490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances
1

1

the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand,

2

113 F.3d at 1525.

3

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

4

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

In determining whether

5

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

6

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

7

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

8

The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. At this early stage in

9

the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the

10

merits. While at the screening stage the Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint stated a cognizable

11

claim (ECF No. 7), the assigned district judge has not yet ordered that the case proceed on that claim.

12

Moreover, based on the record in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his

13

claims and respond to court orders. Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing the

14

motion for appointment of pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.

15
16
17

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED
without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19

Dated:

April 11, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2