(PC) Vargas v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

E.D. California

(PC) Vargas v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

DecidedAugust 16, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-00083

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Vargas v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ((PC) Vargas v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) 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) Vargas v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, (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 DOMINIC (AKA DIAMOND) VARGAS, 1:20-cv-00083-NONE-JLT (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND (Doc. 21) 15 REHABILITATION, et al.,

16 Defendants.

17 18 On August 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 19 21.) Currently pending before the Court Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which will be 20 screened by the Court in due course. (See Doc. 20.) 21 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 22 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 23 represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of 24 Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under 25 section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a reasonable method of securing 26 and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and 27 exceptional cases. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must 28 /// 1 evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 2 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. 3 Presently, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even assuming 4 that Plaintiff is not well-versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations, which, if 5 proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar 6 cases. At this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is likely 7 to succeed on the merits. Moreover, based on a review of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff 8 can articulate his claims adequately. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES 9 WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 21.) 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

12 Dated: August 15, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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 DOMINIC (AKA DIAMOND) VARGAS, 1:20-cv-00083-NONE-JLT (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND (Doc. 21) 15 REHABILITATION, et al.,

16 Defendants.

17 18 On August 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 19 21.) Currently pending before the Court Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which will be 20 screened by the Court in due course. (See Doc. 20.) 21 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 22 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 23 represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of 24 Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under 25 section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a reasonable method of securing 26 and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and 27 exceptional cases. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must 28 /// 1 evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 2 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. 3 Presently, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even assuming 4 that Plaintiff is not well-versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations, which, if 5 proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar 6 cases. At this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is likely 7 to succeed on the merits. Moreover, based on a review of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff 8 can articulate his claims adequately. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES 9 WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 21.) 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

12 Dated: August 15, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Vargas v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-vargas-v-california-department-of-corrections-and-rehabilitation-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack