UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION
April 11, 2011
FRANK ORR, PLAINTIFF,
HERNANDEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justin L. Quackenbush Senior United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff'ssixth Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (ECF. No. 63). Plaintiff indicates in this request that he believes, without counsel, the Defendants will not produce information requested by Plaintiff. The court understands that any pro se litigant "would be better served with the assistance of counsel." Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). However, so long as a pro se litigant, like Plaintiff in this case, is able to "articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter," the "exceptional circumstances" which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. Id. As Plaintiff has already done so in this case, he understands that he can file a motion to compel requesting the court require Defendants produce relevant discoverable information. The Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 63) is DENIED.
Justin L. Quackenbush
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.