UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 9, 2011
KATHLEEN ALLISON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF No. 12)
Plaintiff Matthew Lawrie ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Court to Request Lawyer to Take Case arguing that his case is "exceptional" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). (ECF No. 12.)
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, this court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.
In the present case, the Court does not find the requisite exceptional circumstances.
See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 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. Plaintiff has shown himself capable of presenting his concerns to the Court and, at this point in the litigation, the Court is unable to say that Plaintiff cannot adequately represent his own interests.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 3) is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling his request at a later stage of this litigation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.