Gomez v. Kings County Sherrif Department ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE I. GOMEZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-01170-NONE-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BE APPOINTED COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. 7) 14 KINGS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Jess I. Gomez is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant 20 motion requesting that the court appoint him counsel in this action. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff explains 21 that he is an indigent inmate with limited resources and supplies as an attorney. (Id. at 1.) 22 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action. Rand v. 23 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 24 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). The court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 25 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 26 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary 27 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a 28 reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel 1 only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional 2 circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits 3 [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 4 legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 5 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if 6 it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations 7 which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. His indigent status and 8 incarceration are not sufficient to make this case exceptional. This court is faced with similar 9 cases almost daily from indigent, incarcerated plaintiffs alleging excessive force. Further, at this 10 early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to 11 succeed on the merits. There also is no indication from the record that Plaintiff is unable to 12 articulate his claims pro se. 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED 14 without prejudice. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: August 24, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28