Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01536/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01536-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL PIAZZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

D.R. BRACKETT, DEREK PERRY,

Defendants.

_____________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

11-cv-01536-AWI-BAM 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Michael Piazza is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code section 1983. On January

20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 7.)1

DISCUSSION

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 Title 28 of the United States Code section 1915(e)(1). Mallard v.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct.

 This is Plaintiff’s third motion to appoint counsel. (See, Doc.’s 4, 7.) 1

1

Case 1:11-cv-01536-BAM Document 11 Filed 01/26/12 Page 1 of 3
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

1814, 1816 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, however, the Court may request the

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520,

1525 (9th Cir. 1997). 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

quotations & citations omitted).

In his third attempt to compel the appointment of counsel, Plaintiff claims, inter alia, that

because Plaintiff is “hearing impaired” under the American With Disabilities Act, coupled with

Plaintiff’s current incarcerated state, Plaintiff can not adequately participate in hearings

associated with Plaintiff’s case. (Mot. Appt. Counsel, 2: 12-20, Doc. 10.) The Court is not

persuaded. The scope of Plaintiff’s hearing impairment is unknown, and Plaintiff has not

submitted any evidence to substantiate his status as hearing impaired under the American With

Disabilities Act. Even if Plaintiff had presented this Court with such evidence, Plaintiff has not

presented this Court with any authority, nor has the Court located any, standing for the

proposition that a hearing impairment creates the “exceptional circumstances” required to request

voluntary assistance pursuant to Section 1915(e)(1). 

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. The Court is

faced with similar cases almost daily. At this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot

make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Based on a review of the

record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. 

Indeed Plaintiff’s claims were sufficiently plead to warrant this Court’s order directing

Defendants to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. 9.); See McCoy v.

Hedgpeth, No. 11-cv-0653-MMA-WVG, 2011 WL 2182613, *2 (S.D. Cal., June 6, 2011.) 

2

Case 1:11-cv-01536-BAM Document 11 Filed 01/26/12 Page 2 of 3
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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff 's motion for the appointment of counsel is

hereby DENIED. Any further requests for appointment of counsel will be denied summarily. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 25, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:11-cv-01536-BAM Document 11 Filed 01/26/12 Page 3 of 3