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)

Download PDF
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

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?