(PC) Martinez v. Pfeiffer ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-00998-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 C. PFEIFFER, et al., (Doc. 3) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez is a state prison appearing pro se in this civil rights action 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in this case. 19 (Doc. 3.) 20 Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions, 21 Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney 22 to represent a party under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 23 304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary 24 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 25 Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 26 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether 27 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 1 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 3 if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and has made serious allegations that, if 4 proven, would entitle him to relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar 5 cases almost daily. In addition, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a 6 determination on whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; and, based on a review of 7 the records in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his 8 claims. 9 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 10 counsel without prejudice. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Sheila K. Oberto 13 Dated: January 4, 2021 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27