IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 3, 2010
NATHAN SMITH, PLAINTIFF,
H. A. RIOS, JR. ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF No. 5)
On August 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 5.)
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. See 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).
The Court may, however, request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1) in certain exceptional circumstances. 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 serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Finally, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel [ECF No. 5] is DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.