(PC) Mills v. Pfeffer ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRYL RAY MILLS, 1:20-cv-00195-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Docs. 5, 9) 14 C. PFEFFER, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed two motions seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have 18 a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 19 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 21 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request 22 the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 23 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 24 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 25 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 26 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 27 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 28 1 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 2 if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations 3 which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with 4 similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a 5 determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record 6 in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 7 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED 8 without prejudice. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: September 2, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:20-cv-00195

Filed Date: 9/3/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/19/2024