(PC) Nieto v. Gordon et al
ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice 57 Plaintiff's Fourth Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/2/2022. (Lawrence, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN MOISES NIETO,
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
(ECF No. 57)
Case No. 1:20-cv-00291-JLT-BAK (GSA) (PC)
YORK, et al.,
On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a fourth request for the appointment of counsel.1 (ECF
No. 57.) As grounds, Plaintiff advises that he was found incompetent in superior court. (Id.)
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. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist.
of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel
under 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 exceptional 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.
(See ECF Nos. 27, 41, 47, denied by ECF Nos. 31, 42, 48, respectively.)
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and the instant motion do not indicate exceptional
circumstances that warrant appointment of counsel. Even assuming 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 and
construes pro se pleadings liberally. Moreover, based on a review of the record, the Court finds
that Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims adequately. Id.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the
appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 57), is DENIED.
The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff to stop filing duplicative, failed motions. The
practice burdens the docket and interferes with the Court’s ability to consider pending matters.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 2, 2022
/s/ Gary S. Austin
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?