Wilson v. Fox et al.

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/2/2017 DENYING with prejudice plaintiff's 16 request for the appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID W. WILSON, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-2108 MCE DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER ROBERT W. FOX, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel on the grounds that he is unfamiliar 18 with the law, he has limited access to the law library, and he has various health issues that affect 19 his ability to litigate this case. 20 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 21 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to 22 represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for 23 the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 24 circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 25 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 26 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 27 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 28 Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 1 1 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 2 complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 3 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 4 if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations 5 which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with 6 similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a 7 determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Finally, while plaintiff has 8 submitted certain health forms indicating that he has some health problems, none of these forms 9 implicate plaintiff’s ability to litigate this action. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the appointment of 11 counsel (ECF No. 16) is denied with prejudice. 12 Dated: June 2, 2017 13 14 15 /DLB7; DB/Inbox/Routine/wils2108.31 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?