(PC) Guy v. Espinoza ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMESETTA GUY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00498-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 J. ESPINOZA, et al., (ECF NO. 10) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, Jamesetta Guy, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On August 16, 2019, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Jane Doe 1-500, filed a motion for 21 appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel 22 because the case is meritorious, because she and Jane Doe 1-500 needs assistance in presenting 23 the case, and because she and Jane Doe 1-500 have suffered irreparable harm as a result of 24 Defendants’ actions. 25 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 26 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 27 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 1 | 490 US. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 2 | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 3 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 4 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 5 | “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 6 | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 7 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 8 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 9 || reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that 10 | Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of her claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can 11 | adequately articulate her claims.! 12 Plaintiff is advised that she is not precluded from renewing her motion for appointment of 13 | pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 14 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro 15 | bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 | Dated: _ August 23, 2019 [sf ey — 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' Tt does not appear that Plaintiff is an active licensee of the State Bar of California. Therefore, Plaintiff 28 cannot file motions in court on behalf of other people. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125.