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.

Hon Lau v. K. Harrington

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 29, 2011

HON LAU,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
K. HARRINGTON, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

(ECF Nos. 6 & 7)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL and DENYING REQUEST FOR DOCKET SHEET

On March 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 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). 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, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff's case is in line for screening by the Court. Until such screening occurs, no further action is required by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, counsel would not be of any assistance to the Plaintiff in the short-term.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff has also filed a Motion requesting the status of his case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court is required to screen all complaints, such as Plaintiff's, that are filed against a governmental entity. Plaintiff's Complaint is in line for screening by the Court, and the Court will screen such Complaint in due course. No further action is required on the part of the Plaintiff at this time. The Court finds it unnecessary to send Plaintiff a docket sheet and such request is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

97k110

20110329

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



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.