(PC) Chavez v. Kings County ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PABLO MENDOZA CHAVEZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-00369-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 KINGS COUNTY, et al., (ECF No. 20) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Pablo Chavez (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On August 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF 21 No. 20). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he needs an attorney’s professional 22 help to guide him through this case. Plaintiff believes that an attorney can help him prevail. 23 Plaintiff states that he is willing to pay the attorney 33% when the case is over. 24 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 25 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 26 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 28 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request UVES MMU et Pa VU tee PAY eI 1 | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 2 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 3 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 4 | “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 5 | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 6 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 7 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 8 || reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that 9 | Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can 10 | adequately articulate his claims. 11 Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his motion for appointment of 12 | pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 13 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro 14 | bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ August 11, 2020 [sf hey 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28