Godoy v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 15 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/9/2018: 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# 15)

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On August 1, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff

19

does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113

20

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

21

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

22

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain

23

exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

24

section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

1

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

Plaintiff argues that he cannot afford to retain counsel, and he is at a disadvantage in

4

litigation because of his incarceration. While these conditions make litigation challenging, they

5

do not amount to exceptional circumstances under the law. At this early stage in the proceedings,

6

the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff=s

7

complaint was dismissed on June 27, 2018 for failure to state a claim, and his amended

8

complaint, filed on July 13, 2018, awaits screening by the court. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.) To date, the

9

court has not found any cognizable claims in plaintiff=s complaints for which to initiate service of

10

process, and no other parties have yet appeared. Moreover, based on a review of the record in

11

this case, the court finds that plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. Id. Therefore,

12

plaintiff=s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the

13

proceedings.

14
15

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 9, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2