Maldonado v. Yates et al
Filing
8
ORDER DENYING 7 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/8/2011. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BILLY RAY MALDONADO,
12
1:11-cv-01633-AWI-JLT (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
13
vs.
14
JAMES YATES, et al.,
(Doc. 7)
15
Defendants.
16
________________________________/
17
On November 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. He
18
does not set forth any grounds for the request except that he is “in need of an attorney that can
19
take the case to the extreme of the law of the State of California.” (Doc. 7) Plaintiff also inquires
20
of the Court whether a certain attorney service provides representation for pro se litigants. Id.
21
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
22
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to
23
represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court
24
for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in
25
certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel
26
pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
27
28
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
-1-
1
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
2
of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
3
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
4
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even
5
if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious
6
allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is
7
faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court
8
cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a
9
review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate
10
11
his claims. Id.
Moreover, the Court has no information about the particular legal services firm cited by
12
Plaintiff. If he has questions about the services provided by that firm, he should ask the
13
questions of the firm.
14
15
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 7) is
HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated: November 8, 2011
9j7khi
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?