Huapaya v. Davey et al
Filing
64
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 63 Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/23/2020. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ENRIQUE HUAPAYA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
D. DAVEY, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:17-cv-01441-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 63]
Plaintiff Enrique Huapaya is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel, filed on
June 22, 2020.
21
As Plaintiff was previously advised, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed
22
counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot
23
require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States
24
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain
25
exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to
26
section 1915(e)(1).
27
compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional
28
cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both
Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and
1
1
the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se
2
in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations
3
omitted).
4
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. As with
5
Plaintiff’s prior motions for appointment of counsel, he contends that he is unable to litigate this action
6
because he is illiterate, has mental disabilities, requires the assistance of another inmate to draft his
7
documents, and is in the disability placement program. However, the Court does not find the required
8
exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he
9
has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional.
10
The Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a
11
disadvantage due to his pro se status and his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would
12
benefit from the appointment of counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.
13
1986) (“Most actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will
14
seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) Circumstances
15
common to most prisoners, such as a lack of education or limited law library access, do not alone
16
establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.
17
The legal issues present in this action are not complex. Further, there is no indication from the record
18
that Plaintiff has been unable to adequately articulate claims and prosecute this action. Accordingly,
19
Plaintiff’s second motion for the appointment of counsel shall be denied, without prejudice.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
Dated:
23
June 23, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?