Espritt v. Saesee et al
Filing
8
ORDER Denying 7 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/14/11. (Gonzalez, R)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 BRIAN ESPRITT,
12
1:11-cv-0519-OWW-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
13 vs.
14 A. SAESEE, et. al.,
(ECF No. 7)
15
Defendants.
16 ________________________________/
17
On June 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
18
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,
19 Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an
20 attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States
21 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816
22 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary
23 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However,
24 without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek
25 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
26 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of
27 success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light
28 of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations
-1-
1 omitted).
2
Plaintiff alleges that court-appointed counsel is necessary in this case because he
3 had been declared mentally incompetent in a related criminal proceeding. (ECF No. 7.)
4 The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s plight but this fact alone does not constitute
5 exceptional circumstances at this point in the litigation.
Plaintiff’s case is awaiting
6 screening by the Court and, until such screening occurs, no further action is required by
7 Plaintiff. If this case proceeds to discovery, Plaintiff may refile his request and the Court
8 will evaluate whether, at that time and under the relevant circumstances, the appointment
9 of counsel is appropriate.
10
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is
11 HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
12
13
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15 Dated:
ci4d6
16
June 14, 2011
Michael J. Seng
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?
