(PC) Martinez v. Navarro, et al.

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING 32 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 02/18/2021. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 1:19-cv-00378 NONE-GSA (PC) JOSE ANTONIO RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. (Document# 32) M. NAVARRO, et al., Defendants. 16 17 On February 8, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 18 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 19 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent 20 plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the 21 Southern 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 exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 27 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. 1 1 In the present case, plaintiff argues that it will be difficult for him to investigate the facts 2 of this case and present the case. He also argues that he suffers from mental health issues. These 3 conditions alone do not make plaintiff’s case exceptional. While the Court has found that 4 “Plaintiff states cognizable claims against defendants C/O E. Mares, Sergeant M. Navarro, C/O 5 Cruz, and C/O Navarro for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment,” this 6 finding is not a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. (ECF No. 17 at 6:5- 7 7.) Plaintiff’s excessive force claims are not complex, and based on a review of the record in this 8 case, plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. Thus, the Court does not find the required 9 exceptional circumstances, and plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of 10 11 12 the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 18, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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?