(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