(PC) Davis v. Agundez et al
ORDER DENYING 36 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 01/11/2022. (Maldonado, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:20-cv-00640-DAD-JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
A. AGUNDEZ, et al.,
Plaintiff has filed a document titled, “Motion for Court Order Call’s [sic] . . . Access to
Legal Advice.” (Doc. 36.) Upon review of the document, the Court construes it as a motion for
appointment of counsel.
Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions,
Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney
to represent a party under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), see Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,
304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary
assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the
Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether
“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on
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. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances in the present case. Even
if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and has made serious allegations that, if
proven, would entitle him to relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar
cases almost daily. In addition, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a
determination on whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; and, based on a review of
the records in this case, the Court is unable to find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel without
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 11, 2022
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?