Gallardo v. Sherman et al

Filing 20

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of time to Submit Service Documents and Denying, Without Prejudice, Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel re 19 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/21/17. Service Documents Due Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANGEL LUIS GALLARDO,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
STU SHERMAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00390-SAB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT
SERVICE DOCUMENTS AND DENYING,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 19]

Plaintiff Angel Luis Gallardo is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to submit the service
of process documents, filed August 18, 2017.
Good cause having been presented to the Court, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is

22

granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to submit the service of process

23

documents.

24

With regard to Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, it shall be denied, without

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court
1

1

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

2

1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek

3
4

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

5

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

6

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

7

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s likelihood

8
9

of success on the merits and the ability of the Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

10

complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

11

1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most

12

prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional

13

circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. In the present case,

14

the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for

15

appointment of counsel will be DENIED without prejudice.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:

19

August 21, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2