(PC) Diontae J. Duncan v. The California Healthcare Receivership Corp. et al

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING #12 Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/14/2020. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DIONTAE JOHAN DUNCAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE
RECEIVERSHIP CORP., et al.,

Case No. 1:20-cv-01288-SKO (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Doc. 12)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. (Doc. 12.)

18

Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions, Rand v.

19

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

20

represent a party under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,

21

304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary

22

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

23

Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the

24

Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

///

1

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

2

assuming Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and has made serious allegations that, if proven,

3

would entitle him to relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar cases

4

almost daily. In addition, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination

5

on whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; and, based on a review of the records in

6

this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.

7
8

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel without
prejudice.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 14, 2020

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.