(PC) Medina Vasquez v. Sheriff ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROMMEL D. MEDINA VASQUEZ, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00557-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 13 v. ) MOTION FOR APPOINMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 SHERIFF, et al., ) ) [ECF No. 14] 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Rommel D. Medina Vasquez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel, filed on 21 August 28, 2020. 22 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 23 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent 24 plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern 25 District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court 26 may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 27 1525. 28 /// □□ 4: OU VOY YEOMAN YAR MUO, OPI VOI eT AY ee 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 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiffs likelihood 7 || of success on the merits and the ability of the Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 8 || complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 9 || 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most 10 || prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional 11 || circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. In the present case, 12 the Court has yet to screen Plaintiffs first complaint and based on a cursory review of the complaint, 13 || the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, Plaintiff's second otior 14 || for appointment of counsel is be DENIED without prejudice. 15 16 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. A (Fe 17 |! Dated: _ August 31, 2020 OF 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28