Godoy v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Office et al
Filing
12
ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 11 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/1/2018: Motion is DENIED, without prejudice. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1:17-cv-00809 GSA (PC)
FRANK GODOY,
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
v.
(Document# 11)
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
19
On January 31, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
20
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland,
21
113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent
22
plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the
23
Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain
24
exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to
25
section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
26
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
27
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.
28
Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
1
In determining whether
1
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
2
complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
3
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this
4
early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to
5
succeed on the merits. Plaintiff=s complaint awaits the court’s screening required under 28 U.S.C.
6
1915. Thus, to date the court has not found any cognizable claims in plaintiff=s complaint for
7
which to initiate service of process, and no other parties have yet appeared. The legal issues in
8
this case B mishandling of records, false report, and slander -- are not complex. Moreover, based
9
on a review of the record in this case, the Court finds that plaintiff can adequately articulate his
10
claims. Therefore, plaintiff=s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion
11
at a later stage of the proceedings.
12
13
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 1, 2018
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?