Thompson v. Gomez et al
Filing
108
ORDER DENYING 107 Plaintiff's Fourth Request for Appointment of Counsel, Without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/3/2022. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MARK SHANE THOMPSON,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
A. GOMEZ, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:18-cv-00125-NONE-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH
REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF No. 107)
Plaintiff Mark Shane Thompson 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 motion fourth request for appointment of counsel, filed
June 2, 2022.
As Plaintiff is well aware, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this
22
action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any
23
attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District
24
Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional
25
circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section
26
1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating
27
counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In
28
determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the
1
1
likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in
2
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. Plaintiff is
5
proceeding on a claim of excessive force and the legal issues present in this action are not complex,
6
and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint. Even if it assumed that Plaintiff
7
is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle
8
him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. While
9
the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se status and his incarceration,
10
the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel. See Wilborn v.
11
Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most actions require development of further facts
12
during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts
13
necessary to support the case.”) The test is whether exception circumstances exist and here, they do
14
not. While a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se
15
litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative
16
complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of
17
counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28
18
U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner
19
“may well have fared better-particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert
20
testimony.”) Although this case is currently set for jury trial, that fact, alone, does not entitle Plaintiff
21
to appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s fourth motion for the appointment of counsel shall
22
be denied, without prejudice.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s fourth motion for
1
2
appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated:
6
June 3, 2022
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?