Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hawthorne v. Mendoza-Powers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 7, 2009

RALPH KELLY HAWTHORNE JR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
MENDOZA-POWERS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INTELLIGENCE TEST (Doc. 36)

On February 4, 2009, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. (Doc. 33.) On February 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court-ordered intelligence test to be conducted by CDCR or Chuckwalla Valley State Prison, in order to demonstrate exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 36.)

As was previously explained, 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 represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1).*fn1 Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 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 "exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 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).

As previously explained, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. Further, Plaintiff's case is not exceptional; the court is faced with similar cases almost daily.

The Court does not require an intelligence test to make its determination on Plaintiff's request for counsel. Plaintiff's motion for a court-ordered intelligence test is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.