Bullard v. St. Andra et al
Filing
51
ORDER Denying 49 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 09/10/2018. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
EFREN DANIELLE BULLARD,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00328-LJO-JDP
Plaintiff,
v.
13
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
BENSON, et al.,
14
Defendants.
(Doc. No. 49.)
15
16
17
Plaintiff Efren Danielle Bullard is proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action
18
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on plaintiff’s cognizable claims for (1)
19
violation of the Eighth Amendment against Corrections Officer (“CO”) Jane Doe and CO
20
Benson; (2) conspiracy against CO Jane Doe and CO Benson; and (3) First Amendment
21
retaliation against CO Davis. (Doc. Nos. 10, 12.) On September 5, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion
22
seeking the appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 49.)
23
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand
24
v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en
25
banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to
26
represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S.
27
296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C.
28
1
1
§ 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford
2
counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the court
3
will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such
4
circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits
5
[and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the
6
legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
7
The court cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of
8
counsel are present here. Though plaintiff did not graduate from high school, has a speech
9
impediment, and has been diagnosed with depression (Doc. No. 49, at 2, 4), the allegations in the
10
complaint are not exceptionally complicated. Based on a review of the record, it is not apparent
11
that plaintiff is unable to articulate his claims adequately. Further, at this stage in the
12
proceedings, the court cannot determine whether plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 49)
13
14
is denied without prejudice.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated:
18
September 10, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?