(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)
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?