Robinson v. Rosenthal, et al.
Filing
6
ORDER Denying 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 06/14/2011. (Flores, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 NEHEMIAH ROBINSON,
12
1:11-cv-00746 MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
13 vs.
14 R.ROSENTHAL, et al,
(ECF No. 5)
15
Defendants.
16 ________________________________/
17
18
On June 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
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
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.
3 Plaintiff makes no effort to show that there are exceptional circumstances. His Motion
4 provides only that his prosecution of this action is hampered by his imprisonment. The
5 Court has hundreds of active civil cases being prosecuted by prisoners in the same
6 situation as Plaintiff. It lacks the resources to appoint counsel for every prisoner. Further,
7 at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff
8 is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the
9 Court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
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?
