(PC) Washington v. Fresno County Sheriff ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PERRY WASHINGTON, Case No.: 1:19-cv-00478-AWI-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND DENYING 13 v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., (Doc. 12) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff requests a 60-day extension of time to comply with the Court’s screening order, 18 (Doc. 11). (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff states that he is attempting to retrieve relevant documents from his 19 former attorney. (Id.) Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff 60 days to file a first 20 amended complaint. 21 Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel. (Id.) Plaintiffs do not have a 22 constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 23 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiffs under 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, 25 in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel 26 pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 27 Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 28 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether “exceptional 1 circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] 2 the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 3 issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 The Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances at this time. Even if it is 5 assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and has made serious allegations that, if 6 proven, would entitle him to relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar 7 cases almost daily. In addition, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a 8 determination on whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; and, based on a review of 9 the records in this case, the Court does not currently find that Plaintiff cannot adequately 10 articulate his claims. See id. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the 11 appointment of counsel without prejudice. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: January 9, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28