(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)

Download PDF
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 .

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?