(PC) Trammel v. Garza ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEMARION TRAMMEL, No. 1:20-cv-0001344-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 v. 14 S GARZA, et. al. Doc. No. 11 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to appoint counsel filed January 12, 19 2021. Doc. No. 11. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se on his civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. 20 § 1983. Doc. No. 1. Due to his indigency, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed 21 in forma pauperis. Doc. No.5. In his motion, plaintiff seeks appoint of counsel because he is 22 unable to afford counsel, his imprisonment will limit his ability to litigate the case, and a trial will 23 result in conflicting testimony, a trial will likely occur in this case. Doc. No. 11 at 1-2. 24 The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See 25 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not 26 create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this Court has 27 discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a civil 28 action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to appoint counsel for people 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 | limited to, proof of indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff 6 | to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, to 7 | determine if exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel. Id.; see also Rand □□□ 8 | Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en 9 | banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 10 Here, the Court does not find exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel for 11 | Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is incarcerated, he faces the same obstacles 12 | all pro se prisoners face. A review of the pleadings filed by plaintiff further show he can articulate 13 | his claims. 14 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 15 Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 4, 2021 Mile. Wh fareh Zaskth 19 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28