Opinion

(PC) Brown v. Chothia

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Oct 19, 2021
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.7%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 EUGENE C. BROWN, Case No. 1:20-cv-00352-NONE-EPG (PC)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 C. CHOTHIA, et al.,

(ECF No. 84)

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff Eugene C. Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma

18 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is

19 Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 84.) For the following reasons, the Court will

20 deny the motion without prejudice.

21 According to the motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint counsel to represent him

22 in this case because he is unable to afford counsel. (ECF No. 84.) Plaintiff is currently being put

23 up for another transfer because SCC, where Plaintiff is presently housed, will accommodate space

24 for campers from the closing of CCC. (Id.) Plaintiff is not camp eligible and will be transferred.

25 (Id.) Presently, Plaintiff has limited access to the law library. (Id.) A new computer system has

26 been installed within the facility and Plaintiff is unfamiliar with it. (Id.) Thus, even with library

27 access, Plaintiff’s unfamiliarity and inexperience makes preparing for a trial with multiple

28 defendants an uphill battle. (Id.) Additionally, the introduction of evidence and presentation of a

1 case by an experienced attorney would make for a more level playing field. (Id.) Plaintiff “came

2 to this court with clean hands, [and] but for his limited abilities to present evidence to the court

3 and his utter failure to present expert testimony in response to the defendant’s expert witnesses, a

4 better outcome would have occurred.” (Id.) Appointing counsel “will ensure the courts time will

5 be most efficaciously employed.” (Id.) A trial will likely involve conflicting testimony and

6 counsel would better enable Plaintiff to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. (Id.)

7 Plaintiff has written to several attorneys concerning representation without success. (Id.) Plaintiff

8 has requested few accommodations throughout this case and “has made every effort to be

9 forthright and punctual.” (Id.) Plaintiff hopes that his actions have “demonstrated his abiding

10 veneration for the Court.” (Id.)

11 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

12 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952

13 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28

14 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,

15 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request

16 the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

17 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek

18 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

19 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success

20 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

21

The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. A settlement

22

conference is currently set for February 8, 2022 before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. It

23

appears that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims and advocate on his own behalf at the

24

settlement conference. However, Plaintiff is not precluded from renewing his motion for

25

appointment of pro bono counsel if the case is not resolved at the settlement conference.

26

///

27

///

28

1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (ECF

2 | No. 84) is DENIED without prejudice.

3

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

S| Dated: _ October 19, 2021 hey —

6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.