(PC) Williams v. Rasey ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00203-NONE-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 C. RASEY, (ECF No. 29) 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff David Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint 20 commencing this action on February 18, 2021. (ECF No. 1). 21 On July 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 29). 22 Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because his depression is hampering his ability to 23 litigate his case and because he has limited access to legal resources. (Id. at 1-2). 24 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 25 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 26 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 28 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 1 | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 2 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 3 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 4 | “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 5 | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 6 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” /d. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 7 The Court will not order appointment of counsel at this time. Notably, the Court already 8 | denied a motion for appointment of counsel on June 22, 2021, in which Plaintiff also asserted that 9 | his mental health warranted appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 26, 27). As before, the Court has 10 || reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that 11 | Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can 12 | adequately articulate his claims. 13 Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his motion for appointment of 14 | counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 15 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for appointment of 16 | counsel (ECF No. 29) is DENIED without prejudice. 17 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _ July 22, 2021 [see ey — 20) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28