(PC) Matthew A. Lawrie v. Christian Pfeiffer

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING 17 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/16/2021. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

1:21-cv-00724-NONE-GSA-PC

MATTHEW A. LAWRIE,
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 17.)

vs.
PFEIFFER, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff

18

does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113

23

F.3d at 1525.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
1

1

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At

2

this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely

3

to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s complaint awaits the court’s required screening pursuant to

4

28 U.S.C. § 1915. Thus, to date the court has not found any cognizable claims in Plaintiff’s

5

complaint for which to initiate service of process, and no other parties have yet appeared. The

6

legal issue in this case, whether Defendants have subjected Plaintiff to adverse conditions of

7

confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment, is not complex. Moreover, based on a review

8

of the record in this case, the court finds that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims.

9

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later

10
11
12

stage of the proceedings.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel
is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 16, 2021

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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