You're viewing Docket Item 8 from the case (PC) Turner v. Cortez et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:13-cv-00976-BAM Document 8 Filed 07/31/13 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

HOWARD LAWRENCE TURNER,

1:13-cv-00976-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff,

vs.
R. CORTEZ, et al.,

________________________________/

Defendants.P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 4)

On June 26, 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-00976-BAM Document 8 Filed 07/31/13 Page 2 of 2

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

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

DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
10c20k 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-