(PC)Wallace v. White et al
ORDER DENYING 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/10/2020. (Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:20-cv-00844-EPG (PC)
WILLIAM JAMES WALLACE, II,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
J. WHITE, et al.
(ECF No. 10)
Plaintiff, William James Wallace, II, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion
for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 10.) The Court will deny the motion.
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to
represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional
circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1).
Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
of 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).
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. The
Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that he failed to state any cognizable claim.
Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he is able to amend his
complaint to state cognizable claims, which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not
exceptional. The Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the
proceedings, and particularly in light of the Court’s screening order finding that Plaintiff has
failed to state any cognizable claim, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely
to succeed on the merits. Finally, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not
find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 10) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 10, 2020
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?