Opinion
1:18-cv-00217-NE-GSA-PC
12-10-2021
ISAIAH J. PETILLO, Plaintiff, v. GALLIGER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF NO. 59.)
GARY S. AUSTIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On December 6, 2021, 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 (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. Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss this case based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which makes it unlikely that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits. Plaintiff's claims for excessive force, failure to protect, and retaliation are not complex, and a review of the record in this case shows that Plaintiff is responsive, adequately communicates, and is able to articulate his claims.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.