Mosier v. CDCR, et al.
Filing
7
ORDER Denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/29/11. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JAMES A. MOSIER,
Plaintiff,
12
13
1:11-cv-01034 MJS (PC)
vs.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION,
(ECF No. 3)
15 et al.,
Defendants.
16
________________________________/
17
On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff James A. Mosier (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion seeking the
18
appointment of counsel. (Mot., ECF No. 3.)
19
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand
20
v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney
21
to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District
22
Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989).
23
In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of
24
counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a
25
reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer
26
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
-1-
1 success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light
2 of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations
3 omitted).
4
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.
5 Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made
6 serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional.
7 This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the
8 proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on
9 the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that
10 Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
11
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without
12 prejudice.
13
14
15 IT IS SO ORDERED.
16 Dated:
ci4d6
17
June 29, 2011
Michael J. Seng
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?