(PC) Sharpe v. Sherman ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADAM SHARPE, Case No. 1:19-cv-00711-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO 13 v. COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 STU SHERMAN, et al., (ECF NO. 17) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Adam Sharpe (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. 20 (ECF No. 19). Generally, Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he cannot afford to 21 hire a lawyer; because his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate; because the issues 22 in this case are complex; because Plaintiff has limited access to the law library and limited 23 knowledge of the law; because Plaintiff does not know how to litigate this action; and because the 24 interests of justice and the economy of judicial resources would be best served by assignment of 25 counsel to assist Plaintiff in this action. (Id.) 26 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 27 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 28 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 1 | U.S.C. § 1915(e)C). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 2 | 490 US. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 3 | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 4 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 5 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 6 | “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 7 | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the g | complexity of the legal issues involved.” /d. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 9 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 10 | reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to determine that Plaintiff is 1] | likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can adequately 12 | articulate his claims. 13 Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his motion for appointment of 14 | pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 15 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro 16 | bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 | Dated: _ December 16, 2019 [Je hey 50 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28