Perkins v. Martinez et al

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/19/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALONZO RAYSHAWN PERKINS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
A. MARTINEZ, et al.,

1:18-cv-00501-GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Document# 6)

Defendants.

16
17

On April 16, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff

18

does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113

19

F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff

20

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

21

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain

22

exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

23

section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

24

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

25

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

26

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success

27

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

28

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
1

1

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

2

Plaintiff asserts that he is unable to afford counsel and his imprisonment will greatly limit his

3

ability to litigate his case. This does not make his case exceptional. At this early stage in the

4

proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the

5

merits. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on April 10, 2018, less than two weeks ago, and the case was

6

transferred to this court on April 12, 2018. Plaintiff’s Complaint awaits the Court’s screening

7

required under 28 U.S.C. 1915. Thus, to date the Court has not found any cognizable claims in

8

Plaintiff=s Complaint for which to initiate service of process, and no other parties have yet

9

appeared. Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff

10

can adequately articulate his claims for excessive force, failure to protect, and inadequate medical

11

care, which are not complex. Therefore, Plaintiff=s motion shall be denied without prejudice to

12

renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

13
14

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 19, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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