(PC) Arrant v. Santoro ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN R. ARRANT, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01253-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 KELLY SANTORO, et al., ) ) (ECF No. 42) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Melvin R. Arrant is proceeding pro se and in forma pauepris in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed November 1, 21 2021. 22 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 23 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 25 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the 26 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 27 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 28 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 1 || “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on □□□ 2 || merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of th 3 || legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 In the present case, the Court does find that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional 5 || circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 6 || Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff seeks appointment of 7 || counsel in order to propound discovery and conduct factual investigation. Plaintiff is proceeding on 8 || claims of retaliation and excessive force and the legal issues present in this action are not complex, 9 || and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint. While a pro se litigant may be 10 || better served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this 11 instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the 12 || “exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand v. 13 || Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district 14 || court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better- 15 || particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert testimony.”) Accordingly, Plaintiff 16 || motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice. 17 18 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. A (Fe 19 Dated: _ November 3, 2021 OF 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28