Case Information
*1 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) DANNY CAESAR, Case No.: 1:13-cv-01726-DAD-BAM (PC)
)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO )
v. ) APPOINT COUNSEL ) LOPEZ, et al., ) (ECF No. 60) )
Defendants. )
)
Plaintiff Danny Caesar is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed on December 11, 2017. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff asserts that he has limited law library access and his incarcerated status.
As Plaintiff acknowledges in his motion, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1), Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only
1
*2 in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, a 1 district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In this case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances for the appointment of counsel. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. A review of the record in this case shows that Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims and arguments, and the legal issue he proceeds upon is not complex. Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 60), is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
Dated: December 13, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2