(PC) Jackson v. Akabike ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOHN JACKSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01442-NONE-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 COUNSEL N. AKABIKE, 14 (ECF No. 22) Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff, John Jackson, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for the 18 appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 22.) The Court will deny the motion. 19 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 20 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to 21 represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for 22 the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 23 circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1). 24 Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 25 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 26 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 27 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 28 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the wOAOe 4:40 VV EET OO □□□ □□□ UEOCT POIO POYyh ev 1 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” /d. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. While 3 | the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se status, his incarceration, 4 | and his other stated limitations, including his learning disability (dyslexia), the test is not whether 5 | Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel. The test is whether exceptional 6 || circumstances exist and here they do not. 7 Based on a review of the record, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately g | articulate his claims. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. The case does not involve complex legal or factual g | issues, and Plaintiff’s use of the assistance of a jailhouse lawyers and other assistants in preparing 19 | his legal filings does not make his case exceptional. Further, all documents submitted by Plaintiff, 11 | “however inartfully pleaded,” will be “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation omitted). And, to the 13 extent Plaintiff requires additional time to research, read, write, and otherwise prepare his court 14 filings as a result of his learning disability, he may request that additional time by filing a motion 15 with the Court. 16 Finally, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that U7 Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. 18 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of 19 counsel (ECF No. 22) is DENIED without prejudice. *0 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: _ June 17, 2020 [sl ey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28