Aidnik v. California Medical Facility et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Howard D. McKibben on 7/27/09 DENYING 31 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Engbretson, K.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Before the court is the plaintiff's motion for appointment of 21 counsel (#31). 22 appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 23 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to 24 represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 25 U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 26 (1989). 27 may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 28 1 However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court Mallard v. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to JEFF AIDNIK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, et ) al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) 2:08-cv-02583-HDM-RAM ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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 must evaluate both the

circumstances exist, the district court

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." marks and citations omitted). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Notwithstanding plaintiff's claim of a Id. (internal quotation

learning disability, plaintiff's pleadings have been lucid, well presented, and demonstrate a grasp of his constitutional and statutory rights. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well

versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily.

Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and 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, plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. DATED: This 27th day of July, 2009.

____________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2