You're viewing Docket Item 18 from the case (PC) Campa v. Zamora et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:






Case 1:12-cv-01897-AWI-MJS Document 18 Filed 10/09/13 Page 1 of 2



















UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY J. CAMPA,

Plaintiff,

v.

L.D. ZAMORA, et al.,

Defendants.





1:12-cv-01897-AWI-MJS (PC)


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 16)


Plaintiff Anthony J. Campa (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a

motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 16.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20



Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,

21

22

23

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 (1989).

24



In certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary

25

26

27

28

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

However, 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


1












Case 1:12-cv-01897-AWI-MJS Document 18 Filed 10/09/13 Page 2 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

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

10

not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

11



For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is

12

DENIED, without prejudice.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






IT IS SO ORDERED.


Dated: October 9, 2013


DEAC _Signat ure- END:





il0i0dj70h0c

/s/ Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE








2