(PC) Gray v. Clark ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS EUGENE GRAY, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00196-NONE-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. ) FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 KEN CLARK, et.al., ) ) [ECF No. 30] 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Thomas Eugene Gray is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed August 24, 20 2020. 21 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 22 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent 23 plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern 24 District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court 25 may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 26 1525. 27 /// 28 /// wOoOe 4:6 UV EUNICE Oe MeN PAYS ev 1 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 2 || volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 3 || “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on thi 4 || merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of th 5 || legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 6 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it 7 || assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if 8 || proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with similar cases 9 || almost daily. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se status an 10 || his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel. □□□□ 11 || Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most actions require development of 12 || further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the 13 || facts necessary to support the case.”) The test is whether exception circumstances exist and here, the 14 || do not. Indeed, circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited 15 || law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for 16 || voluntary assistance of counsel. Plaintiff is proceeding on claim of excessive force and failure to 17 || protect, and the claims are not complex. Further, at this early stage of the litigation, the Court cannot 18 || determine that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for the 19 || appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice. 20 21 IS SO ORDERED. Al (re 22 lI pated: _ August 25, 2020 OF 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28