Shafirovich v. Trump ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ARKADY SHAFIROVICH, Case No. 1:20-cv-01343-DAD-EPG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 12 v. (ECF No. 2) 13 DONALD JOHN TRUMP, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 14 APPOINT PRO BONO LAWYER Defendants. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 (ECF No. 3) 16 17 Plaintiff, Arkady Shafirovich, is proceeding pro se in this action. (ECF No. 1). On 18 September 21, 2020, Plaintiff submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) 19 and a motion to appoint a pro bono lawyer (ECF No. 3). For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s motion 20 to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion to appoint a pro bono lawyer 21 is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 22 With respect to Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff has made the 23 requisite showing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 24 forma pauperis is GRANTED. As to the status of the complaint, Plaintiff is advised that pursuant 25 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of a pro se complaint filed in 26 forma pauperis to determine whether it is legally sufficient under the applicable pleading 27 standards. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, if the Court determines that the 28 1 complaint is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 2 granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 3 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may 4 be granted to the extent that the deficiencies in the complaint can be cured by amendment. The 5 complaint will be screened in due course and Plaintiff will be served with the resulting order. 6 With respect to Plaintiff’s motion for counsel, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right 7 to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and 8 the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 9 Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 10 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request 11 the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 12 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 13 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 14 exceptional circumstances exist, the “district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 15 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 16 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 17 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 18 if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that Plaintiff has made serious 19 allegations which, if proved, would entitle Plaintiff to relief, Plaintiff’s case is not exceptional. 20 The Court has conducted a brief review of Plaintiff’s complaint and cannot find, at this point, that 21 Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. In addition, based on a review of the record in this 22 case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate Plaintiff’s claims. Id. 23 \\\ 24 \\\ 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\ wOAOe 4: UVM EOTOPAE NSOMUC eA 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma 2 || pauperis (ECF No. 2) be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion to appoint pro bono counsel (ECF 3 | No. 3) be DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. S| Dated: _September 24, 2020 [Je hey □□ 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28