(PC) Flowers v. County of Fresno

E.D. California

(PC) Flowers v. County of Fresno

DecidedJuly 12, 2021

Docket1:19-cv-01027

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Flowers v. County of Fresno ((PC) Flowers v. County of Fresno) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Flowers v. County of Fresno, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL D. FLOWERS, 1:19-cv-01027-JLT (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., (Doc. 17)

15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff states 18 he is unable to afford counsel; the issues in this case are complex; Plaintiff has limited knowledge 19 of the law; and he has no access to the law library. Id. 20 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 21 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 22 represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of 23 Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under 24 section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a reasonable method of securing 25 and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and 26 exceptional cases. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must 27 evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 28 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. 1 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 2 assuming that Plaintiff is not well-versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations, 3 which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with 4 similar cases almost daily. At this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot determine 5 whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Moreover, based on a review of the record, 6 the Court finds that Plaintiff can articulate his claims adequately. Id. 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 8 motion for the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 17.) 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

11 Dated: July 12, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL D. FLOWERS, 1:19-cv-01027-JLT (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., (Doc. 17)

15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff states 18 he is unable to afford counsel; the issues in this case are complex; Plaintiff has limited knowledge 19 of the law; and he has no access to the law library. Id. 20 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 21 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 22 represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of 23 Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under 24 section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a reasonable method of securing 25 and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and 26 exceptional cases. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must 27 evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 28 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. 1 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 2 assuming that Plaintiff is not well-versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations, 3 which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with 4 similar cases almost daily. At this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot determine 5 whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Moreover, based on a review of the record, 6 the Court finds that Plaintiff can articulate his claims adequately. Id. 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 8 motion for the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 17.) 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

11 Dated: July 12, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Flowers v. County of Fresno, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-flowers-v-county-of-fresno-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack