(PC) Lewis v. Ugwueze ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARONTE T. LEWIS, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00596-AWI-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 DR. KOKOR, ) (ECF No. 84) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Daronta T. Lewis is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel filed on June 21, 20 2021. (ECF No. 84). This motion is identical to Plaintiff’s previous motion for appointment of counsel 21 filed on June 17, 2021 that was denied. (ECF Nos. 81, 83). Plaintiff proffers that since May 31, 2021, 22 he has been hospitalized due to right hand trauma and cannot write. Plaintiff states he does not know 23 the extent of the injury nor how long he will be unable to write, and is requesting the appointment of 24 counsel to assist with completing discovery. 25 The Court notes that Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this 26 action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require any 27 attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District 28 Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nevertheless, in certain exceptional 1 || circumstances, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)( 2 |)Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, tl 3 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determinir 4 || whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood | 5 success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of th 6 || complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Neith 7 || of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer v. Valdez, 5¢ 8 || F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on □□□□□□□ 9 ||Id. 10 As stated in the previous order, in light of the reasons proffered, the claims underlying th 11 action, and the current scheduling order in this action, the Court does not find exception 12 || circumstances requiring appointment of counsel. Specifically, the current deadlines in this action ar 13 ||(1) an exhaustion motion filing deadline of August 24, 2021; (2) a deadline to amend pleadings □ 14 || November 24, 2021; (3) a discovery deadline of January 24, 2022; and (4) a dispositive motion filir 15 || deadline of April 4, 2022. (ECF No. 76). Given Plaintiff has no knowledge of the extent of his □□□□ 16 || or how long it will last, and the current deadlines, the Court finds a more appropriate remedy would t 17 areasonable extension of any relevant deadline, if the need presents itself in the future. 18 Accordingly, Plaintiff motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice. 19 20 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Hl (re 21 lI Dated: _ June 25, 2021 OF 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28