Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01914/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01914-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Isaac
Defendant
Noel Rodriguez
Plaintiff

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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOEL RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ISAAC,

Defendant.

1:11-cv-01914-AWI-GSA-(PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Document# 31)

On July 24, 2015, 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 

Aexceptional 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).

Case 1:11-cv-01914-AWI-EPG Document 35 Filed 07/31/15 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 2

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At 

this stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to 

succeed on the merits; defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the doctrines of res judicata and 

collateral estoppel is now pending and may dispose of the case. Moreover, based on the record in 

this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Further, the 

legal issue in this case B whether defendant failed to protect plaintiff B does not appear complex, 

and this court is faced with similar cases almost daily. 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.

Dated: July 30, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01914-AWI-EPG Document 35 Filed 07/31/15 Page 2 of 2