(PC) Williams v. Pfeiffer ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL DEONTRAY WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01094-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 v. (ECF No. 11) 14 PFEIFFER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Michael Deontray Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and 18 in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, filed August 13, 2020. 20 (ECF No. 11.) In his motion, Plaintiff states that he is unable to afford counsel, and his 21 imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate. In addition, Plaintiff states that he has 22 limited access to the law library, and coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) precautions have closed CSP 23 Sacramento’s A Facility since March 2020. Plaintiff alleges there has been no law library access. 24 Plaintiff further states that he receives mental health care at the EOP level and he suffers from 25 auditory and visual hallucinations, traits of schizophrenia paranoid type. Plaintiff states that he 26 has a TABE score of 2.9. Plaintiff has made repeated efforts to obtain a lawyer but has been 27 unsuccessful. (Id.) 28 /// 1 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 2 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 3 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 5 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary 6 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 7 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 8 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 9 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 10 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 11 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 12 The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but does not find the required exceptional 13 circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has 14 made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. 15 This Court is faced with similar cases filed by prisoners who are proceeding pro se and with 16 limited access to the law library almost daily. Many of these prisoners also have limited 17 education and receive mental health treatment. These litigants also must conduct legal research 18 and litigate their cases without the assistance of counsel. 19 Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 20 Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened to 21 determine whether it states cognizable claims upon which it may proceed, and based on a review 22 of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his 23 claims. 24 Finally, the Court notes that if Plaintiff continues to experience limited or no access to the 25 law library at his institution, he may seek appropriate extensions of time for any applicable 26 deadlines. However, at this time there are no pending deadlines in this action which would 27 require Plaintiff to access the law library to conduct legal research. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 11), is HEREBY DENIED, 2 without prejudice. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: August 14, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28