Carter v. California Health Care Services et al

Filing 32

ORDER DENYING 28 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/17/19. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEITH REAGAN CARTER,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.

1:17-cv-01374-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 28.)

CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE
SERVICES, et al.,

15

Defendants.
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff, Keith Reagan Carter, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

On October 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).

25

circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section

26

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

However, in certain exceptional

27

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

28

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
1

1

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

2

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

3

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

4

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. On

5

August 15, 2019, the Court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that this case

6

be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No.

7

26.) Therefore, it appears that Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff asserts that

8

he is indigent, unable to afford counsel, and needs professional assistance so that his interests

9

may be protected.

These conditions, although unfortunate, do not make Plaintiff’s case

10

exceptional under the law. Plaintiff’s case stems from allegations that prison staff improperly

11

and unexpectedly deducted funds from his prison trust account for $5.00 co-payments for medical

12

and dental care at the prison, violating his rights to due process and medical care. Plaintiff alleges

13

that his requests for return of the funds were denied. These claims are not complex, and a review

14

of the record shows that Plaintiff is responsive, adequately communicates, and is able to articulate

15

his claims. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the

16

motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

17
18

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel
is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 17, 2019

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2