Tuggle v. Olsen et al
Filing
13
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 12 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/01/2011. (Flores, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
STEVEN RAMON TUGGLE,
10
Plaintiff,
11
CASE NO. 1:10-cv–01420-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
v.
(ECF No. 12)
12
13
OLSEN, et al.,
Defendants.
/
14
15
Plaintiff Steven Ramon Tuggle is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
16
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion
17
for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to
18
appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the
19
court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard
20
v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814,
21
1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary
22
assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
23
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
24
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
25
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
26
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity
27
of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
28
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if
1
1
it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations
2
which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with
3
similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a
4
determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record
5
in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
6
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
7
DENIED, without prejudice.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated:
cm411
November 1, 2011
/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
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?
