Lawson v. Youngblood
Filing
16
ORDER DENYING 14 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/14/2011. (Jessen, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
+
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RICHARD A. LAWSON,
Case No. 1:09-cv-0992-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,
12
13 vs.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
14 SHERIFF DONALD YOUNGBLOOD, et
al.,
15
Defendants.
(ECF No. 14)
16 ________________________________/
17
On May 16, 2011, Plaintiff Richard A. Lawson (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Appoint
18 Counsel. (ECF No. 14).
19
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action.
20 Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court cannot require an
21 attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States
22 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816
23 (1989).
In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary
24 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However,
25 without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek
26 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
27 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of
28 success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light
-1-
1 of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations
2 omitted).
3
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.
4 Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made
5 serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional.
6 This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the
7 proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on
8 the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that
9 Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
10
Plaintiff’s case is awaiting screening by the Court, and no f action is required of
11 Plaintiff at this time. The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s health condition and the fact
12 that it—coupled with his low-level reading skills—may make it difficult for him to prosecute
13 this action pro se. However, many prisoners face similarly difficult conditions and the Court
14 simply does not have the resources to appoint counsel for all disadvantaged plaintiffs. If
15 this case should proceed into discovery, Plaintiff may renew his request and the Court will
16 reconsider whether, at that time and under those circumstances, the appointment of
17 counsel may be appropriate.
18
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is
19 HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice to Plaintiff re-raising the issue if this case proceeds
20 to discovery.
21
22
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24 Dated:
ci4d6
25
June 14, 2011
Michael J. Seng
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?
