Caputi v. Fresno County Superior Court
Filing
8
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Appointmnet Of Counsel (Doc. 7 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/16/2011. (Fahrney, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IMELDA CAPUTI,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, )
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )
11-cv-01579-AWI-BAM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
16
17
18
INTRODUCTION
19
Plaintiff Imelda Caputi, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has alleged claims
20
against Defendant Fresno County Superior Court, claiming wrongful termination, age
21
discrimination and Title VII violations. On October 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a document which
22
inquired as to whether the Court has “any help or free attorney to assist people like [Plaintiff].”
23
(Doc. 7.) The Court has taken this submission as a Motion to Appoint Counsel.
24
25
26
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action (Rand v.
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to
27
28
1
1
represent plaintiff pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code section 1915(e)(1). Mallard v.
2
United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct.
3
1814, 1816 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, however, the Court may request the
4
voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520,
5
1525 (9th Cir. 1997). In determining whether "exceptional circumstances exist, the district court
6
must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to
7
articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Id. (internal
8
quotations & citations omitted).
9
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even
10
if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that she has made serious
11
allegations which, if proved, would entitle her to relief, her case is neither exceptional nor overly
12
complex. As Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend on October 18, 2011, the
13
Court does not find, at this time, that there is a likelihood of success on the merits. (Doc. 6.)
14
Furthermore, because the nature of Plaintiff’s claims do not appear to be overly complex, the
15
Court does not find it would be unreasonably difficult for Plaintiff to articulate her claims.
16
CONCLUSION
17
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff 's motion for the appointment of counsel is
18
19
hereby DENIED.
Plaintiff is required to file her amended complaint pursuant to the Court’s October 18,
20
2011 Order. Failure to comply with the Court’s Order will result in a recommendation that the
21
case be dismissed.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k
November 16, 2011
/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?
