(PC) Chatman v. Vera ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AUDREE CHATMAN, ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-01463-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 H. VERA, ) ) (ECF No. 46) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Audree Chatman is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 8, 21 2021. Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; his 22 imprisonment limits his ability to litigate properly; the issues involved in this case are complex; a trial 23 in this case will likely involve conflicting testimony and counsel would be able to present adequate 24 evidence and cross-examine witnesses; he has limited knowledge of the law; he is housed in 25 segregation; and he has not been able to obtain a lawyer on his own. (ECF No. 46.) 26 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 27 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 1 || U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the 2 || voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 3 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 4 || volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 5 || “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on th 6 || merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 7 || legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 8 In the present case, the Court does find that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional 9 || circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 □□□ 10 || Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court is faced with similar 11 || cases almost daily. Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of excessive force against a single Defendant 12 || and the legal issues present in this action are not complex. Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his 13 || allegations in the complaint and litigated this case to date. Circumstances common to most prisoners 14 || such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional 15 || circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. While a pro se litigat 16 || may be better served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in thi 17 || instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the 18 || “exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand v. 19 || Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district 20 || court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better- 21 || particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert testimony.”) Accordingly, Plaintiff 22 || motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. A (Fe 25 pated: _ November 12, 2021 OF 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28