(PC) Huapaya v. Davey ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ENRIQUE HUAPAYA, ) Case No. 1:17-cv-01441-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 13 v. ) MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ) 14 D. DAVEY, et al., [ECF No. 63] ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Enrique Huapaya is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel, filed on 20 June 22, 2020. 21 As Plaintiff was previously advised, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed 22 counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot 23 require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States 24 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain 25 exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 26 section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and 27 compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional 28 cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both wOAOe □□ FOV EET LENE SEN MUO IR ee AY ee 1 || the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro : 2 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citatiot 3 || omitted). 4 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. As wi 5 || Plaintiff's prior motions for appointment of counsel, he contends that he is unable to litigate this actic 6 || because he is illiterate, has mental disabilities, requires the assistance of another inmate to draft h 7 || documents, and is in the disability placement program. However, the Court does not find the require 8 || exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that I 9 has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not □□□□□□□□□□ 10 || The Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at 11 || disadvantage due to his pro se status and his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff wou 12 || benefit from the appointment of counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Ci 13 || 1986) (“Most actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant wi 14 seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) □□□□□□□□□□□□ 15 ||common to most prisoners, such as a lack of education or limited law library access, do not alot 16 || establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counse 17 || The legal issues present in this action are not complex. Further, there is no indication from the □□□□ 18 || that Plaintiff has been unable to adequately articulate claims and prosecute this action. □□□□□□□□□□ 19 || Plaintiffs second motion for the appointment of counsel shall be denied, without prejudice. 20 21 IS SO ORDERED. Al (re 22 lI pated: _ June 23, 2020 OF 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28