(PC) Lira v. Securustech.Net

E.D. California

(PC) Lira v. Securustech.Net

DecidedSeptember 1, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-01274

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Lira v. Securustech.Net ((PC) Lira v. Securustech.Net) 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) Lira v. Securustech.Net, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN G. LIRA, Case No. 1:21-cv-01274-JLT (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. COUNSEL

14 SECURUSTECH.NET, et al., (Doc. 5) 15 Defendants.

16 17 On August 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 5.) 18 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 19 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 20 represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of 21 Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under 22 section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a reasonable method of securing 23 and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and 24 exceptional cases. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must 25 evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 26 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. 27 These exhibits do not indicate exceptional circumstances that warrant appointment of 28 counsel. Even assuming that Plaintiff is not well-versed in the law and that he has made serious 1 allegations, which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is 2 faced with similar cases almost daily. At this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot 3 determine whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Moreover, based on a review of the 4 record, the Court finds that Plaintiff can articulate his claims adequately. Id. 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 6 motion for the appointment of counsel. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

9 Dated: September 1, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10

11 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

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN G. LIRA, Case No. 1:21-cv-01274-JLT (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. COUNSEL

14 SECURUSTECH.NET, et al., (Doc. 5) 15 Defendants.

16 17 On August 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 5.) 18 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 19 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 20 represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of 21 Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under 22 section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a reasonable method of securing 23 and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and 24 exceptional cases. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must 25 evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 26 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. 27 These exhibits do not indicate exceptional circumstances that warrant appointment of 28 counsel. Even assuming that Plaintiff is not well-versed in the law and that he has made serious 1 allegations, which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is 2 faced with similar cases almost daily. At this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot 3 determine whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Moreover, based on a review of the 4 record, the Court finds that Plaintiff can articulate his claims adequately. Id. 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 6 motion for the appointment of counsel. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

9 Dated: September 1, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10

11 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) Lira v. Securustech.Net, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-lira-v-securustechnet-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack