(PC) Washington v. Sutton ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISAIAH WASHINGTON, 1:20-cv-00983 GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 JOHN SUTTON, et al., (Documents # 9, 10) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On September 8, 2020 and September 14, 2020, plaintiff filed motions seeking the 18 appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this 19 action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an 20 attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States 21 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). 22 However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of 23 counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 24 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 25 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 26 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 27 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 28 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 1 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this 2 early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to 3 succeed on the merits. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on July 16, 2020, and the Complaint awaits 4 the Court’s screening required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Thus, to date the Court has not found any 5 cognizable claims in plaintiff’s Complaint for which to initiate service of process, and no other 6 parties have yet appeared. Plaintiff’s claims that he was subjected to an unreasonable strip 7 search, sexual assault, and excessive force, and denied access to the court are not complex. 8 Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court finds that plaintiff can 9 adequately articulate his claims. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice 10 to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 11 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 12 DENIED, without prejudice. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: September 17, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28