The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RICARDO MARTINEZ, 1:19-cv-00967 AWI-GSA (PC)
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
14 K. BROWN, et al., (Document# 28)
15 Defendants.
16
17 On September 21, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
18 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland,
19 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent
20 plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the
21 Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain
22 exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to
23 section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
24 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
25 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
26 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success
27 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
28 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
1 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.
2 Plaintiff argues that he cannot afford to retain counsel and he is not knowledgeable about the law.
3 These conditions do not make plaintiff’s case exceptional under Ninth Circuit law. Plaintiff’s
4 Complaint was dismissed on September 3, 2020, for failure to state a claim, and his First
5 Amended Complaint, filed on September 21, 2020, awaits screening by the court. (Docs. 26, 27.)
6 Therefore, the court has not found any cognizable claims to date in plaintiff’s complaints for
7 which to initiate service of process, and no other parties have yet appeared. The court finds it
8 unlikely that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits of this case. His claims concerning his prison
9 appeals are not complex, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court finds that
10 plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion shall be denied
11 without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
12 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
13 DENIED, without prejudice.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16 Dated: September 24, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28