You're viewing Docket Item 12 from the case (PC) Crisp v. Wasco State Prison et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:13-cv-00816-GSA Document 12 Filed 07/25/13 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OBIE CRISP,

1:13-cv-00816 GSA (PC)

Plaintiff,

vs.
WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(MOTION #9)

On July 18, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 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 28 U.S.C. § 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). However, in certain
exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to
section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

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 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).

-1-

Case 1:13-cv-00816-GSA Document 12 Filed 07/25/13 Page 2 of 2

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At
this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely
to succeed on the merits. On July 10, 2013, Plaintiff requested leave to file an amended
complaint, and on July 11, 2013, the court issued an order informing Plaintiff he has leave to
file an amended complaint. (Docs.6, 7.) Thus, at this stage of the proceedings, the court
expects Plaintiff to file an amended complaint which will replace the original complaint. After
Plaintiff files the amended complaint, the court is required to screen it to determine if Plaintiff
states any cognizable claims. 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Until the screening process is completed, the
court cannot make any determination about the likelihood of Plaintiff’s success on the merits.
Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff
cannot adequately articulate his claims. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without
prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

DENIED, without prejudice.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 25, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin

220hhe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-