# (PC) Brown v. Perez

> District Court, E.D. California · February 8, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10025155

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** February 8, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10025155

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RICKY L. BROWN, Case No. 1:19-cv-01638-DAD-JLT (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
13 v.
(Doc. 36)
14 D. PEREZ,
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. (Doc. 36.)
18 Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions, Rand v.
19 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to
20 represent a party under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,
21 304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary
22 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
23 Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the
24 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether
25 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on
26 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
27 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
///
1 The Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that
2 Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and has made serious allegations that, if proven, would
3 entitle him to relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar cases almost
4 daily. In addition, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits;
5 and, based on a review of the records in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot
6 adequately articulate his claims.
7 In support of his motion, Plaintiff states that the prison at which he is incarcerated has
8 limited inmates’ access to the law library due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Doc. 36 at 1.) The
9 Court notes that, if Plaintiff’s ability to timely respond to a motion or court order is obstructed by
10 limited access to the library, he may request an extension of time. The Court routinely grants
11 extensions of time, as long as the requests are supported by good cause. Additionally, at present,
12 there are no pending motions or court orders that require a response from Plaintiff,1 and discovery
13 in this matter is currently stayed, (Doc. 33). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion
14 for the appointment of counsel without prejudice.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16

17 Dated: February 6, 2021 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10025155. Public record. Not legal advice.