(PC) Daniels v. Baer ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORMAN GERALD DANIELS III, 1:19-cv-01801-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 A. BAER, et al., (Document #8) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On February 3, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 18 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 19 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent 20 plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the 21 Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain 22 exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 23 section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 24 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 25 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 26 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 27 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 28 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 1 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 2 Plaintiff argues that counsel should be appointed because he suffers from impaired vision. This 3 alone does not make plaintiff’s case exceptional under the Ninth Circuit’s standards discussed 4 above. At this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff 5 is likely to succeed on the merits. This case was removed to federal court on December 23, 2019, 6 and the complaint awaits the court’s screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Thus, to date the court 7 has not found any cognizable claims in plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s claims, for violation of 8 due process, cruel and unusual punishment, and conspiracy to violate the First Amendment, are 9 not complex. Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case, the court finds that plaintiff 10 can adequately articulate his claims. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without 11 prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 12 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 13 DENIED, without prejudice. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: February 6, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28