(PC) Jones v. Garcia ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES B. JONES, 1:17-cv-01311-LJO-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 J. GARCIA, et al., (Doc. #38) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Charles B. Jones is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion 19 seeking the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 38.) Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to 20 appointed counsel in section 1983 actions, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiffs under 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, in 22 “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant 23 to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 24 The Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In 25 determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the 26 likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [petitioner] to articulate his claims pro 27 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 28 1 citations omitted). In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 2 if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations 3 that, if proven, would entitle him to relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with 4 similar cases almost daily. In addition, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot 5 make a determination on whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; and, based on a 6 review of the records in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately 7 articulate his claims. See id. 8 In response to Plaintiff’s concern that recurring health problems may hinder his ability to 9 reply to orders of the Court in a timely manner, the Court notes that Plaintiff may seek reasonable 10 extensions of time as necessary to respond to Court orders. The Court routinely grants extensions 11 of time upon showings of good cause, which may include a health issue that hinders a party’s 12 ability to respond to an order. 13 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 14 DENIED without prejudice. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Sheila K. Oberto Dated: October 7, 2019 /s/ . 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28