(PC) Cortinas v. Vasquez ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00367-NONE-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. 17) 14 VASQUEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff 18 does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this civil action, see Rand v. Rowland, 19 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent a party 20 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). 21 However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of 22 counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 23 Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 24 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining 25 whether “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of 26 success on the merits [and] the ability of the [petitioner] to articulate his claims pro se in light of 27 the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). /// 1 In the present case, the Court does not find the requisite exceptional circumstances. Even 2 if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and has made serious allegations that, if 3 proven, would entitle him to relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar 4 cases almost daily. In addition, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a 5 determination as to whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. 6 Plaintiff states that he has been unable to state a cognizable claim, and he suggests that 7 this is a reason for the Court to appoint him counsel. (See Doc. 17.) However, the Court has found 8 that Plaintiff has stated cognizable claims for excessive force, sexual assault, and deliberate 9 indifference to medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 16 at 1, 4-7.) The Court has only 10 found that Plaintiff does not a cognizable claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 11 Rehabilitation Act. (Id. at 1, 7-8.) In any event, Plaintiff’s assertion does not establish the 12 requisite exceptional circumstances to merit appointment of counsel. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 14 counsel without prejudice. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Sheila K. Oberto 17 Dated: April 17, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27