IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 3, 2010
AMOS RYLES, PLAINTIFF,
T. FELKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Samuel P. King Senior United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff Amos Ryles is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel [doc. 23]. In his request, he indicates among other reasons that the issues are complex, that the issues will require significant research and investigation, and that he has limited access to the knowledge of the law.
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). 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 (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 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).
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court has already dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Although the Court allowed Plaintiff a further opportunity to state a claim, the case is not exceptional given the allegations of prior filings. Based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of counsel [doc. 23] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.