Opinion

(PC) Portillo v. City of Shafter

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Aug 30, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.4%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MARIO R. RODAS PORTILLO, Case No. 1:23-cv-00920-BAM

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

13 v. COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

DENYING REQUEST FOR

14 CITY OF SHAFTER, et al., INVESTIGATOR

15 Defendants. (Doc. 11)

16

17 Plaintiff Mario R. Rodas Portillo is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma

18 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed

19 the instant motion requesting that the Court appoint counsel to represent him in this action. (Doc.

20 11.) In support of the motion, Plaintiff explains that he is unable to afford counsel and his

21 imprisonment limits his litigation capabilities. Plaintiff contends that he is unable to obtain

22 copies of summonses and the complaint for service, the facility lacks a notary for proof that

23 documents were mailed and received, and the facility charges for inmates to make copies.

24 Additionally, Plaintiff would like an investigator for the purpose of interviewing witnesses.1 (Id.

25 at p. 1-2.)

26

27 1 Plaintiff also mentions that the Shafter Police Department is not looking into his “identity theft of

personal and business due to this lawsuit.” (Doc. 11 at p. 2.) Plaintiff’s assertions regarding identity theft

28 appear to be unrelated to the nature of this action.

1 I. Motion to Appoint Counsel

2 Plaintiff is advised that does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this

3 action. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds,

4 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). The court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff

5 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S.

6 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the

7 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a

8 reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel

9 only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional

10 circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits

11 [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

12 legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

13 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even

14 if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations

15 which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. His indigent status and

16 incarceration are not sufficient to make this case exceptional. This Court is faced with similar

17 cases almost daily from indigent, incarcerated plaintiffs proceeding pro se. These litigants also

18 must conduct legal research, pay for photocopies, and litigate their cases without the assistance of

19 counsel. A notary is not required for proofs of service.

20 Furthermore, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination

21 that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. The first amended complaint has not been

22 screened, and no defendants have appeared. There also is no indication from the record that

23 Plaintiff is unable to articulate his claims pro se. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel

24 will therefore be denied without prejudice.

25 To the extent Plaintiff complains about his inability to obtain copies of summons and

26 complaint for service, Plaintiff is reminded that the Court is required to screen complaints brought

27 by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of

28 a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is

1 subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may

2 be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

3 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Plaintiff’s first amended complaint has not been screened. As a result, no

4 summons will issue at this time. The Court will direct the United States Marshal to serve

5 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint only after the Court has screened the complaint and

6 determined that it contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendant(s). The

7 Court will screen Plaintiff’s first amended complaint in due course.

8 II. Motion for Investigator

9 As to the apparent request for appointment of an investigator, Plaintiff has been granted

10 leave to proceed in forma pauperis with this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 7.)

11 However, the in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for

12 investigators. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see also Snow v. Mar, 785 F. App’x 465, 466 (9th Cir. 2019)

13 (“[T]here is no statutory authorization for a court-appointed investigator for civil litigants

14 proceeding in forma pauperis.”); Davood v. Jimmanz, No. 1:21-cv-01394-SAB (PC), 2021 WL

15 6051735, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2021) (denying request to appoint investigator for plaintiff

16 proceeding in forma pauperis); Brown v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01285-AWI-

17 EPG, 2018 WL 5734531, *2–3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2018) (“Section 1915 does not authorize the

18 Court to expend public funds to appoint an investigator or researcher. Thus, the Court is without

19 authority to appoint an investigator or researcher to assist Plaintiff.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff's

20 request to appoint an investigator also will be denied.

21 III. Conclusion and Order

22 Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

23 1. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 11) is DENIED without prejudice; and

24 2. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of an investigator is DENIED.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

27 Dated: August 30, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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.