(PC) Grant v. Borges ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUSSELL S. GRANT, Case No. 1:20-cv-00908-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 BORGES, et al., (ECF NO. 4) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Russell Grant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On June 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 21 4). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; because his 22 incarceration will greatly limit his ability to litigate; because the issues involved in this case are 23 complex; because Plaintiff has limited access to the law library; because Plaintiff has limited 24 knowledge of the law; because Plaintiff needs counsel to conduct an investigation into certain 25 allegations; because a trial in this case will likely involve conflicting testimony; and because 26 Plaintiff has made repeated efforts to obtain a lawyer. 27 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 28 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 wOAOe LOU UVM INE NS MMM PIO ee AY eve 1 | (th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 21 US.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 3 | 490 US. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 4 | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 5 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 6 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 7 | “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 8 | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 9 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 10 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 11 || reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that 12 | Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can 13 | adequately articulate his claims. 14 Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his motion for appointment of 15 | pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 16 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro 17 | bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 | Dated: _ July 2, 2020 [sf hy □ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28