(PC) Jackson v. Quick ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORNEL JACKSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01591-NONE-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 JASON QUICK, et al., (ECF NO. 28) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Cornel Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On October 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF 21 No. 28). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; because 22 his incarceration has greatly limited his ability to litigate; because the issues involved in this case 23 are complex and will require significant research and investigation; because Plaintiff has no 24 access to a law library; because Defendants refuse to provide legal information or materials; and 25 Plaintiff has no knowledge of the law; and Plaintiff has limited formal education and reading 26 disabilities. Plaintiff also states that a trial will require cross-examination. 27 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 28 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 1 | (th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 21 US.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 3 | 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 4 | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 5 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 6 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 7 | “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 8 | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 9 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 10 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 11 | entered findings and recommendations, recommending that this case proceed on certain of 12 | Plaintiffs claims. At this stage, Plaintiffs case is not so exceptional as to merit the request for 13 | pro bono counsel by the Court. In addition, it appears that Plaintiff has the ability to articulate his 14 | claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 15 Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his motion for appointment of 16 | pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 17 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro 18 | bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 | Dated: _ October 20, 2020 [Je ey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28