Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00580/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00580-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bobby Gene Glover
Plaintiff
James Yates
Defendant

Document Text:

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

BOBBY GENE GLOVER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JAMES YATES,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:10-cv-00580 SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

( #16)

On August 23, 2010, 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 1:10-cv-00580-SKO Document 17 Filed 08/24/10 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 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: August 24, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

0mee UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:10-cv-00580-SKO Document 17 Filed 08/24/10 Page 2 of 2