(PC) Ayobi v. Romero ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAJIA AYOBI, ) Case No. 1:19-cv-00964-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ) MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. ) COUNSEL AND REQUEST FOR ) EXTENSION OF TIME, WITHOUT 14 ROMERO, ) PREJUDICE 15 Defendant. ) ) (ECF Nos. 24, 25) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Shajia Ayobi is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and request for an 20 extension of time, filed October 8, 2020. (ECF Nos. 24, 25.) 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 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 28 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 1 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the 2 merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate [her] claims pro se in light of the complexity of 3 the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff 5 contends that she is at a disadvantage in litigating this case because English is not her native language. 6 However, it appears that plaintiff has adequate understanding of English and “the court does not have 7 the resources to appoint counsel for every prisoner with limited English language and reading skills 8 who files a civil rights action.” Nguyen v. Bartos, No. 2:10-cv-1461 WBS KJN P, 2012 WL 3589797, 9 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2012); see Montano v. Solomon, No. 2:07-CV-0800 KJN P, 2010 WL 10 2403389, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2010) (The Court denied the appointment of counsel to an indigent 11 plaintiff unable to read and write English.); Rios v. Tilton, No. 2:07-CV-0790 WBS KJN P, 2010 WL 12 3784703, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010) (The Court held that plaintiff, a state prisoner, claiming to 13 be “disadvantaged in legal training and resources, because English is [her] second language” did not 14 face any challenges “dissimilar to those faced by most prisoners pursuing civil rights actions.”). 15 Furthermore, even if it assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that she has made 16 serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, her case is not exceptional. The Court 17 is faced with similar cases almost daily. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage 18 due to her pro se status and her incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the 19 appointment of counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most 20 actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a 21 position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) The test is whether exception 22 circumstances exist and here, they do not. At this point in the litigation, the Court is cannot find that 23 Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 24 counsel is denied, without prejudice. 25 With regard to Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, it is unclear what the extension is 26 for. The only pending deadline is the dispositive motion deadline set for October 19, 2020. However, 27 Plaintiff does not indicate that she intends to file a dispositive motion nor does she demonstrate good 28 wOAOe 4 SAD MMU IO Ie AY VM VI 1 || cause to extend the time to do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time shall be 2 || denied, without prejudice. 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel and request for an extension of 4 || time are denied, without prejudice. 5 6 || IT IS SO ORDERED. A (re 7 lated: _ October 9, 2020 OF g UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28