(PC) Bonsall v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY BONSALL, Case No. 1:19-cv-00418-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 DR. KONGARA, (ECF NO. 18) 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Anthony Bonsall (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On May 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 21 18). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; because his 22 imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate this case; because the issues in this case are 23 complex; because Plaintiff has never before been a party to a civil legal proceeding; because a 24 trial in this case will likely involve conflicting testimony; and because Plaintiff has made repeated 25 efforts to obtain a lawyer, but has been unable to find a lawyer willing to take his case. 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a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 27 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 28 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 4:40 VV TLOO RT NS MMU Ia ee PAY eI 1 | U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 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 8 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (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 make a determination that 11 | Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can 12 | adequately articulate his claim. 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 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _May 27, 2020 [Je hey 20) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28