(PC) Fernandez v. Satterfield ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE FERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:19-cv-01220-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. 14) 14 SATTERFIELD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Jorge Fernandez requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. (Doc. 18 14.) Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions, 19 Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney 20 to represent a party under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 21 304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary 22 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 23 Because the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 24 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether 25 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 26 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 27 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). /// 1 The Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances in this case. Even if the 2 Court assumes that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and has made serious allegations that, if 3 proven, would entitle him to relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar 4 cases almost daily. In addition, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a 5 determination on whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; and, based on a review of 6 the records in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his 7 claims. See id. 8 In his motion, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are continuing to harass him. (See Doc. 14 9 at 1-2.) Though Plaintiff’s allegations do not satisfy the “exceptional circumstances” standard 10 articulated above, the Court notes that Plaintiff may pursue a new civil rights action based on 11 constitutional violations that occur(ed) after he initiated the present action. 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 13 counsel without prejudice. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: February 27, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27