Jimmy Ray Ramos v. Tulare County Sheriff's Dept. et al
ORDER Denying 10 Motion for Appointment of Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 04/09/2018. (Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JIMMY RAY RAMOS,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00065-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
TULARE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
(ECF No. 10)
Plaintiff is a County jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion seeking the
appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,
Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an
attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United
States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In
certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of
counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a
reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer
counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of
success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in
light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional
circumstances. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he
has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not
exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early
stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to
succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does
not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is
HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 9, 2018
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?