(PC) Davis v. Agundez et al

Filing 38

ORDER DENYING 36 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 01/11/2022. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORNELL DAVIS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:20-cv-00640-DAD-JLT (PC) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 36) A. AGUNDEZ, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a document titled, “Motion for Court Order Call’s [sic] . . . Access to 18 Legal Advice.” (Doc. 36.) Upon review of the document, the Court construes it as a motion for 19 appointment of counsel. 20 Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions, 21 Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney 22 to represent a party under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), see Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 23 304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary 24 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 25 Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 26 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether 27 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 28 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 1 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2 The Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances in the present case. Even 3 if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and has made serious allegations that, if 4 proven, would entitle him to relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar 5 cases almost daily. In addition, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a 6 determination on whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; and, based on a review of 7 the records in this case, the Court is unable to find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his 8 claims. 9 10 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel without prejudice. 11 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 11, 2022 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 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?