Filed: Feb. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 15, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Document# 306) GARY S. AUSTIN , Magistrate Judge . On February 12, 2018, 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
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Document# 306) GARY S. AUSTIN , Magistrate Judge . On February 12, 2018, 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 ..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Document# 306)
GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.
On February 12, 2018, 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).
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this stage of the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff's sixth amended complaint, filed on February 12, 2018, awaits screening by the court to determine if it states cognizable claims. (ECF No. 307.) Based on a review of the record in this case, the court finds that plaintiff can adequately articulate her medical claims, which do not appear complex. Plaintiff seeks counsel to assist her with settlement negotiations. This does not amount to exceptional circumstances under the law. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
