(PC) Sekona v. Perez ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ETUATE SEKONA, 1:19-cv-00400-NONE-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 vs. (ECF No. 35.) 14 PEREZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 18 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 19 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent 20 Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the 21 Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 22 circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 23 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 24 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 25 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 26 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 27 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 28 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 1 The Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this early stage in the 2 proceedings, the court finds it unlikely that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s 3 Second Amended Complaint was dismissed on October 6, 2021, for failure to state a claim, with 4 leave to amend. To date, Plaintiff has not filed the Third Amended Complaint. Thus, there is no 5 complaint on record in this case for which the Court has found cognizable claims. It is too early 6 for service of process, and no other parties have yet appeared. Moreover, the Court finds that 7 Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims and respond to the Court’s orders. Plaintiff is 8 advised that he is not precluded from renewing the motion for appointment of counsel at a later 9 stage of the proceedings. 10 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 11 is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: November 10, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28