- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER ALLEN VAN GESSEL, 1:18-cv-01478-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 THOMAS MOORE, et al., (Document# 11) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff 18 does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 19 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant 20 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 21 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances 22 the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 23 113 F.3d at 1525. 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 success of 27 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 28 of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 1 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this 2 early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to 3 succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed fewer than three weeks ago on 4 October 7, 2019, awaits screening by the court. (ECF No. 10.) Until the First Amended Complaint 5 is screened and the court finds that Plaintiff states cognizable claims, service of process shall not 6 be initiated upon the defendants. Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case, the court 7 finds that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims, and his medical claims are not complex. 8 Plaintiff argues that he cannot afford counsel and his resources are limited because he is 9 incarcerated. While these conditions make litigation challenging, they do not amount to 10 exceptional circumstances under the law. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without 11 prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 12 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 13 DENIED, without prejudice. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: October 24, 2019 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 1:18-cv-01478
Filed Date: 10/24/2019
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/19/2024