(PC) Bullard v. St. Andra ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EFREN D. BULLARD, No. 1:17-CV-00328-NONE-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 FNU BENSON, C LOVE, B.S. DAVIS, FNU KISTER-COOPER, Doc. No. 95 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s (third) motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 95), filed 19 December 22, 2020. Plaintiff states he requires counsel due to the pending trial and because he 20 takes psychotropic medications to treat his mental illnesses. The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s 21 previous motions for appointment of counsel. See Doc. Nos. 51, 86. 22 23 The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See 24 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not 25 create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this Court has 26 discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a civil 27 action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to appoint counsel for people 28 1 | unable to afford counsel); see also United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978) 2 (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (other 3 citations omitted). However, motions to appoint counsel in civil cases are granted only in 4 “exceptional circumstances.” /d. at 1181. The Court may consider many factors including, but not 5 6 limited to, proof of indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff 7 || to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, to 8 || determine if exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel. Jd.; see also Rand v. 9 | Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en 10 | banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 11 Here, the Court does not find exceptional circumstances at this time to warrant appointment 12 B of counsel for Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is incarcerated, he faces the 14 | Same obstacles all pro se prisoners face. While the Court is sensitive to Plaintiffs claimed mental 15 || illness, a review of the docket reveals Plaintiff to date has adequately prosecuted this case. Further, 16 | a trial in this case is not proceeding currently. A settlement conference is scheduled to take place 17 | on March 25, 2021. See Doc. 102. Consequently, the Court may revisit this issue at a later stage 1 8 of the proceedings if the interests of justice so require. 19 Accordingly: 20 Plaintiffs motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 95) is denied, without prejudice. 22 23 | ITIS SO ORDERED. 24 al, 55 | Dated: _ January 28, 2021 □□□ □□ 1h. Poareh Back HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28