(PC) Ramsey v. Dickerson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID BRANDON RAMSEY, 1:19-cv-00666-DAD-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 vs. (ECF No. 35.) 14 C/O A. DICKERSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 David Brandon Ramsey (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 14, 2022, plaintiff 20 filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 35.) 21 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 22 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to 23 represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court 24 for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in 25 certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel 26 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 2 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 3 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 5 Plaintiff’s case stems from allegations that the defendants used excessive force against him, in 6 violation of the Eighth Amendment. At this early stage of the proceedings, the court cannot make 7 a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s excessive force claims 8 are not complex and based on the record, Plaintiff is able to adequately articulate his claims and 9 respond to court orders. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that 10 he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case does not 11 appear exceptional. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal 12 of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 13 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 14 is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: February 7, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28