(PC) Turner v. Zepp ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 VINCENT TURNER, Case No. 1:20-cv-00184-AWI-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 COUNSEL ANDREW ZEPP, et al. 14 (ECF No. 90) Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Vincent Turner is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 On January 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF 19 No. 90.) Plaintiff’s motion states: 20 Motion request for an attorney on grounds I am under the American’s Disability act. I have a reading and spelling disability. Enclosed is evidence stating my tabe 21 score. I am requesting a lawyer or for the ongoing upcoming issues be addressed by 22 conversation over the phone. If I don’t respone to any of the Defendants issues I’m sure it shouldn’t be a 23 problem. It’s been done many of times by Dr. Khaled A. Tawansy and his case has not been dismissed. I’m more then sure it’s okay. 24 25 (Id.) Plaintiff also attaches copies of two documents he describes as his reading scores. (Id.) 26 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 27 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 28 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 enn nn eee on nnn nn nnn nnn OO IR IID 1 | ULS.C. § 1915(e)C1), Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of lowa, 2 | 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 3 | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 4 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 5 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 6 | “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 7 | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the g || complexity of the legal issues involved.” Jd. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 9 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 10 || teviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that 1] | Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can 12 || adequately articulate his claims. However, Plaintiff is not precluded from renewing his motion for 13 | appointment of pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.! 14 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro 15 | bono counsel (ECF No. 90) is DENIED without prejudice. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: _ February 11, 2022 [sl ey 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 □□ 25 ' Defendants Zepp and Tawansy have each filed motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 72, 74.) Plaintiff is reminded that, as explained in the Rand warnings accompanying Defendant Zepp and Tawansy’s motions for 26 summary judgment, Federal Rule of 56 explains what he must do in order to oppose summary judgment. (See ECF Nos. 72-4, 74-2.) If Plaintiff does not respond to the issues raised in Defendants’ motions, then summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against Plaintiff. (See id.) Although Plaintiff has filed several documents opposing 27 Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (see ECF Nos. 78, 91-95), if Plaintiff believes he needs additional time to oppose Defendants’ motions he should promptly file a request for leave to file additional briefing and explain the 28 basis for his request.