(PC) Nieto v. Gordon et al

Filing 58

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN MOISES NIETO,

12
13

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

Defendants.

(ECF No. 57)

v.

14

Case No. 1:20-cv-00291-JLT-BAK (GSA) (PC)

YORK, et al.,

15
16

On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a fourth request for the appointment of counsel.1 (ECF

17
18

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.

19
20

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to

21

represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist.

22

of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

23

under section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a reasonable method of

24

securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most

25

serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the

26

district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits and the ability of the

27

Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id.

28

1

(See ECF Nos. 27, 41, 47, denied by ECF Nos. 31, 42, 48, respectively.)

1

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and the instant motion do not indicate exceptional

2

circumstances that warrant appointment of counsel. Even assuming that Plaintiff is not well-

3

versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations, which, if proved, would entitle him

4

to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily and

5

construes pro se pleadings liberally. Moreover, based on a review of the record, the Court finds

6

that Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims adequately. Id.

7
8
9

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

10

practice burdens the docket and interferes with the Court’s ability to consider pending matters.

11

Failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions.

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 2, 2022

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2