# (PC) Urmancheev v. Ndoh

> District Court, E.D. California · March 11, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10025835

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** March 11, 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/10025835

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not 28 1 create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ALIM S. URMANCHEEV, No. 1:21-cv-00255-HBK (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION
TO APPOINT COUNSEL
13 v.

14 R. NDOH, et. al.
(Doc. No. 3)
15 Defendants.

16
17
18 Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to appoint counsel filed February
19 24, 2021. (Doc. No. 3). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se on his civil rights complaint filed under 42
20 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). The court previously granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to
21 proceed in forma pauperis due to his indigency. (Doc. No. 5). Plaintiff now moves for
22 appointment of counsel on the following factors: (1) he is unable to locate or afford counsel, (2)
23 his “serious mental illness” makes him unable to comprehend legal issues; (3) he has a limited
24 proficiency in English and knowledge of the law; and, (4) because a trial will result in conflicting
25 testimony. (Doc. No. 3 pp. 1-2).
26 The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See
27 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not
28
1 create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has
2 discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a
3 civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to appoint counsel for
4 people unable to afford counsel); see also United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir.
5 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (other
6 citations omitted). However, motions to appoint counsel in civil cases are granted only in
7 “exceptional circumstances.” Id. at 1181. The court may consider many factors including, but
8 not limited to, proof of indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the
9 plaintiff to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
10 involved, to determine if exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel. Id.; see also
11 Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on
12 reh’g en banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998).
13 Here, the court does not find exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel
14 for plaintiff. Although plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is incarcerated, he faces the same
15 obstacles all pro se prisoners face. Plaintiff does not indicate the nature of his alleged “mental
16 illness” or how it affects his ability to prosecute this action. Indeed, a review of the pleadings
17 filed by plaintiff to date show he can articulate his claims in this case. See Brown v. Reif, 2019
18 WL 989874, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2019) (denying appointment of counsel where the plaintiff’s
19 filing demonstrate ability to properly litigate case despite mental illness). Further, a plaintiff’s
20 limited English proficiency “does not constitute an exceptional circumstance.” Garces v.
21 Degadeo, WL 1521078, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2007). There is therefore no basis for the court
22 taking the extraordinary step of appointing counsel. Further, this case is at the initial stages of
23 litigation. Should this case progress and plaintiff’s circumstances change and he is able to
24 demonstrate exceptional circumstances, he may renew his motion for appointment at counsel at
25 that time.
26 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
27 Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED without prejudice.
28
1
> | IT IS SO ORDERED.
° Dated: __March 10, 2021 oo. WN. fered Yack
4 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10025835. Public record. Not legal advice.