Hisle v. Conanon, et al.

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, Plaintiff's Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel 23 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/21/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DENNIS CURTIS HISLE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
MARLYN CONANON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 23]

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel, filed June

19
20

Case No. 1:17-cv-01400-LJO-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff Dennis Curtis Hisle is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

19, 2018.

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), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent

23

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

24

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court

25

may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at

26

1525.

27

///

28

///
1

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

1
2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it

7

assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if

8

proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. Plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment

9

claim against prison officials for denying him appropriate medical attention. The legal issues present

10

in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his allegations in the amended

11

complaint. In addition, although Plaintiff contends that there is a likelihood he will succeed on the

12

merits, the evaluation of such analysis is premature at this time as the Court has only Plaintiff’s

13

allegations and evidence before it. Plaintiff also argues counsel is needed to obtain expert testimony,

14

however, this does not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding

15

no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel

16

despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better—particularly in the realm of discovery

17

and the securing of expert testimony,” because that is not the applicable test). Furthermore, based on a

18

review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his

19

claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s second motion for the appointment of counsel is

20
21

HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:

25

June 21, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2