UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 23, 2013
REBECCA BLANK, SECRETARY OF UNITED STATES DEP'T OF COMMERCE,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 5)
On January 25, 2013, Plaintiff Larcenia Taylor filed motion for appointment of counsel, asserting "she does not have the funding to hire an attorney." (Doc. 5).
In most civil cases, there is no constitutional right to counsel in most civil cases, the Court may request an attorney to represent indigent persons. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The Court cannot require representation of a plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nevertheless, in "exceptional circumstances," the Court has discretion to request the voluntary assistance of counsel. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997).
To determine 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." Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 2
Even if it is assumed Plaintiff is not well-versed in the law and has made serious allegations which, if 3 proved, would entitle her to relief, this case is not exceptional. Plaintiff has demonstrated she is able 4 to respond to the Court's order, meet a deadline set by the Court, and articulate facts to support her 5 claims. Further, at this early stage in the proceeding, the Court is unable to make a determination that 6
Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 5) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.