Goods v. City of Bakersfield Police Department

Opinion

CHARLES FRANCIS GOODS, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-0662 AWI JLT ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. ) CITY OF BAKERSFIELD POLICE ) (Doc. 17) DEPARTMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 17) Plaintiff “request[s] that counsel be appointed in this matter so that [his] interest may be protected by the professional assistance required.” (Id. at 1) Importantly, there is no constitutional right to counsel in most civil cases, but the Court may request an attorney to represent indigent persons. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Plaintiff is advised that the Court cannot require representation of a plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nevertheless, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court has discretion to request the voluntary assistance of counsel. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). To determine 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.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated he is able to intelligibly state his position, respond to the Court’s orders, and meet deadlines set by the Court. In addition, this the legal issues presented are not complex. Finally, at this early stage in the proceeding, the Court is unable to make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Therefore, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances at this time. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 17) is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated: August 30, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE