Rhoden v. Department of State Hospitals et al

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, Plaintiff's 7 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 02/13/2018. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAWTIS DONALD RHODEN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS,
et al.,
Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00101-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
[ECF No. 7]

Plaintiff Lawtis Donald Rhoden is a civil detainee appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in

17
18

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California

19

Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the

20

meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).
On January 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not

21
22

have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525

23

(9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any 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 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary

26

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 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. At this early stage in the proceedings,

9

the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a

10

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

11

claims. Id. Although the legal issues may be somewhat complex, Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his

12

allegations in the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is

13

HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:

17

February 13, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2