# (PC) Brown v. Chothia > District Court, E.D. California · October 19, 2021 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10031124 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** October 19, 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/10031124 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10031124. Public record. Not legal advice.