Johnson v. Davey et al

Filing 6

ORDER Denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/27/17. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DARRELL E. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 13 v. DAVE DAVEY, et al., Defendants. 14 15 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-01257-BAM (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF No. 2) Plaintiff Darrell E. Johnson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 On September 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel. (ECF 18 No. 2.) In support, Plaintiff contends that he is indigent and unable to afford counsel, is mentally 19 disabled by being EOP and requiring an acute level of care, does not know the law, and has limited 20 knowledge and formal education. 21 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action. Rand v. 22 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 n.1 23 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 25 298, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances, the Court may 26 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 27 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer 28 counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. 1 In determining whether “exceptional 1 circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] 2 the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 3 involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it 5 is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if 6 proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases 7 almost daily from indigent prisoners proceeding without representation. While Plaintiff indicates he is 8 mentally disabled, he has not provided any documentation to substantiate his claim. 9 Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened, and at this early stage, the Court cannot make a 10 determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in 11 due course. 12 13 Further, For these reasons, Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara September 27, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?