(PC) Knapp v. Madera County Department of Corrections ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTHUR DEAN KNAPP, 1:18-cv-00811-LJO-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Doc. 53) CORRECTIONS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff Arthur Dean Knapp filed a motion seeking the 18 appointment of counsel. (Doc. 53.) Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed 19 counsel in section 1983 actions, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the 20 Court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiffs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard 21 v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the 22 Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 23 F.3d at 1525. 24 The Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In 25 determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the 26 likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [petitioner] to articulate his claims pro 27 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 28 citations omitted). 1 Plaintiff has filed several prior motions for appointment of counsel, which have been 2 denied. The Court does not find a change in circumstances, or the requisite exceptional 3 circumstances to warrant a different outcome here. Even assuming Plaintiff is not well versed in 4 the law and has made serious allegations that, if proven, would entitle him to relief, his case is not 5 extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. In addition, at this stage in the 6 proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination as to whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on 7 the merits. 8 Plaintiff states that he has a “5.3 reading level” and received assistance from another 9 inmate in preparing the present motion. (Doc. 53, p. 3.) However, upon reviewing Plaintiff’s 10 complaint and prior motions, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his 11 claims. Plaintiff also states that he is on psychotropic medication and suffering from post- traumatic stress disorder. (Id.) Plaintiff fails to demonstrate, however, that these medications or 12 mental health issues prevent him from adequately presenting his claims. 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 14 counsel without prejudice. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Sheila K. Oberto Dated: November 18, 2019 /s/ . 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28