(PC) Chatman v. Vera ( 2022 )

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 SECOND 13 v. ) MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 H. VERA, ) ) (ECF No. 54) 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 second motion for appointment of counsel, filed 21 January 24, 2022. 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, Plaintiff seeks counsel because he is presently without his legal property 5 || due to a transfer to a different facility. The Court does find that neither the interests of justice nor 6 exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 7 || 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court is faced 8 || with similar cases almost daily. Plaintiff is proceeding on a claim of excessive force against a single 9 Defendant and the legal issues present in this action are not complex. Plaintiff has thoroughly set 10 || forth his allegations in the complaint and litigated this case to date. Circumstances common to most 11 || prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional 12 || circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. While a pro se litigat 13 || may be better served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in thi 14 || instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the 15 || “exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand v. 16 || Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district 17 || court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better- 18 || particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert testimony.”) Although it is 19 || unfortunate that Plaintiff is presently without his legal property due to his transfer, the Court has 20 || simultaneously granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file his pretrial statement. Accordingly, 21 || Plaintiff's second motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. A (Fe 24 lI pated: _ January 25, 2022 OF 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28