(PC)Wallace v. White et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/10/2020. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:20-cv-00844-EPG (PC)

WILLIAM JAMES WALLACE, II,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

v.
J. WHITE, et al.

(ECF No. 10)
Defendants.

16

Plaintiff, William James Wallace, II, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

17

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion

18

for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 10.) The Court will deny the motion.

19

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

20

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to

21

represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District Court for

22

the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional

23

circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1).

24

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

25

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek

26

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

27

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success

28

of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
1

1

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. The

3

Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that he failed to state any cognizable claim.

4

Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he is able to amend his

5

complaint to state cognizable claims, which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not

6

exceptional. The Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the

7

proceedings, and particularly in light of the Court’s screening order finding that Plaintiff has

8

failed to state any cognizable claim, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely

9

to succeed on the merits. Finally, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not

10
11
12

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.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 10, 2020

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2