(PC) Robinson v. Cryer ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFERY DONEL ROBINSON, No. 1:20-cv-00622-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 C. CRYER, L. MERRITT, Doc. No. 9 14 Defendants. 15 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 9), 17 18 filed July 31, 2020. Plaintiff filed this case by initiating an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a 19 prisoner proceeding pro se on July 15, 2020. See Doc. No. 1. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion 20 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on July 17, 2020. See Doc. No.7. 21 Plaintiff seeks appoint of counsel and lists numerous reasons, including, but not limited to 22 that: he is unable to afford counsel, his imprisonment will limit his ability to litigate the case, and 23 a trial will result in conflicting testimony. See Doc. No. 9 at 1-2. 24 The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See 25 26 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not 27 create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this Court has 28 1 | discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a civil 2 action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to appoint counsel for people 3 unable to afford counsel); see also United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978) 4 (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (other 5 6 citations omitted). However, motions to appoint counsel in civil cases are granted only in 7 || “exceptional circumstances.” Jd. at 1181. The Court may consider many factors including, but not 8 || limited to, proof of indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff 9 || to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, to 10 determine if exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel. Jd.; see also Rand y. 11 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en 12 B banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 14 Here, the Court does not find exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel for 15 || Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is incarcerated, he faces the same obstacles 16 | all pro se prisoners face. A review of the pleadings filed by Plaintiff further show he can articulate 17 | his claims. 18 19 Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 9) is DENIED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: _ January 11, 2021 Mile. Wh fareh fackte 24 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28