(PC)Wallace v. White ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIAM JAMES WALLACE, II, Case No. 1:20-cv-00844-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 COUNSEL J. WHITE, et al. 14 (ECF No. 10) Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, William James Wallace, II, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 17 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion 18 for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 10.) The Court will deny the motion. 19 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 20 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 21 represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District Court for 22 the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 23 circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1). 24 Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 25 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 26 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 27 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 28 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 4:2 UV YY OTT NS MMU Pa Vr ee PY eI 1 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” /d. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. The 3 | Court has screened Plaintiff's complaint and found that he failed to state any cognizable claim. 4 | Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he is able to amend his 5 | complaint to state cognizable claims, which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not 6 | exceptional. The Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the 7 | proceedings, and particularly in light of the Court’s screening order finding that Plaintiff has 8 | failed to state any cognizable claim, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely 9 | to succeed on the merits. Finally, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not 10 | find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Jd. 11 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of 12 | counsel (ECF No. 10) is DENIED without prejudice. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 | Dated: _ September 10, 2020 [sf ey — 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28