(PC) Anderson v. Kernan ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HECTOR CLARENCE ANDERSON, 1:19-cv-01048-LJO-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 SCOTT KERNAN, et al., (Doc. 16) 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Hector Clarence Anderson is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the 21 appointment of counsel. (Doc. 16.) Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed 22 counsel in section 1983 actions, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the 23 Court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiffs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard 24 v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the 25 Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 26 F.3d at 1525. 27 Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether 1 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 2 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. Even 5 if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations 6 that, if proven, would entitle him to relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with 7 similar cases almost daily. In addition, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot 8 make a determination on whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; and, based on a 9 review of the records in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately 10 articulate his claims. See id. Although Plaintiff states that he is on psychotropic medication, (Doc. 11 16 at 1), there is no evidence presented that this medication prevents him from adequately 12 presenting his claims. 13 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED without prejudice. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Sheila K. Oberto Dated: October 22, 2019 /s/ . 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27