(PC) Cruz v. Gomez ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-00740-DAD-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 GOMEZ, et al., (Docs. 9, 10) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file objections to the undersigned’s findings and 18 recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 9.) However, 19 Plaintiff has already filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 8.) Therefore, 20 the Court will deny this motion as moot. 21 Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in this case. (Doc. 10.) 22 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this civil action, see Rand v. 23 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 24 represent a party under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 25 304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary 26 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 27 Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining 1 whether “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of 2 success on the merits [and] the ability of the [petitioner] to articulate his claims pro se in light of 3 the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 The Court does not find the requisite exceptional circumstances exist in this case. Even if 5 the Court assumes that Plaintiff has made serious allegations that, if proven, would entitle him to 6 relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. In 7 addition, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is likely to 8 succeed on the merits; and, based on a review of the records in this case, the Court does not find 9 that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. For the reasons set forth above, the Court 10 ORDERS: 11 1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Doc. 9) is DENIED as moot; and, 12 2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 10) is DENIED without prejudice. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: June 19, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27