(PC) Santos Rodriguez v. Santoro ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-01263-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. No. 12) 14 KELLY SANTORO, Warden at North Kern State Prison, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Santos Rodriguez, a former state prisoner, has pending a pro se complaint filed 19 on August 19, 2021. (Doc. No. 1). The undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations that 20 the district court dismiss the complaint for failing to state claim. (See Doc. No. 11). Plaintiff 21 moves a second time for appointment of counsel because his “mind isn’t capable of answering 22 these allegations.” (Doc. No. 12). 23 As noted in the Court’s September 8, 2021 Order, the United States Constitution does not 24 require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) 25 (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not create a right to appointment of counsel in 26 civil cases). This Court has discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to appoint counsel for 27 an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating 28 the court has authority to appoint counsel for people unable to afford counsel); see also United enn ne eee een nnn nen nn on nnn nen nn enn NO In SIE OD 1 | States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review for 2 || motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (other citations omitted). However, motions to appoint 3 | counsel in civil cases are granted only in “exceptional circumstances.” Jd. at 1181. The Court 4 | may consider many factors to determine if exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of 5 | counsel including, but not limited to, proof of indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, 6 | and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of 7 | the legal issues involved. Id.; see also Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), 8 | withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court 9 | “is not required to articulate reasons for denying appointment of counsel if the reasons are clear 10 | from the record.” Johnson v. United States Dept. of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir.1991). 11 As pointed in the undersigned’s Findings and Recommendations, the complaint alleges 12 | fantastic and delusional claims and he is not likely to succeed on the merits. (See generally Doc. 13 | No. 11). Thus, Plaintiff fails to show exceptional circumstances to warrant appointment of 14 | counsel. 15 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 16 Plaintiff's second motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED without prejudice. 17 | Dated: _ December 21, 2021 Mile. Wh fareh Zaskth 19 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 |: plaintiff is welcome to view the resources for pro se litigants available at https://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/, While the website is specific to our neighboring Central District of California, it nonetheless contains information helpful 28 | for guiding pro se litigants in the Eastern District.