Moore v. Fontecha et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 15 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/18/17. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMARIO MOORE, 12 13 14 No. 2:16-cv-2138 CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER CATHERINE FONTECHA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has requested 18 appointment of counsel. The court cannot require an attorney to represent a plaintiff who cannot 19 pay for the attorney’s services. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). 20 However, under the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court may request 21 that an attorney represent a person unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court 22 will make that request only when there are exceptional circumstances. When determining 23 whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court considers, among other things, plaintiff's 24 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro 25 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 26 (9th Cir. 2009). While the court is aware of the difficulties attendant to litigating an action while 27 incarcerated, circumstances common to most prisoners do not establish “exceptional 28 circumstances.” 1 1 2 3 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances at this stage of these proceedings. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the appointment of 4 counsel (ECF No. 15) is denied. 5 Dated: January 18, 2017 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 1/md moor2138.31 12 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?