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.

Michael Piazza v. D.R. Brackett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 7, 2011

MICHAEL PIAZZA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
D.R. BRACKETT, DEREK PERRY,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Michael Piazza is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code section 1983. On October 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 7.)

DISCUSSION

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 Title 28 of the United States Code section 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). In certain exceptional circumstances, however, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). 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 quotations & 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. The 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.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff 's motion for the appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20111107

© 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.