(PC) Moore v. Diaz ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRENCE JESSE MOORE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00865-AWI-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 HEATHER DIAZ, (ECF No. 24) 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Terrence Jesse Moore (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On October 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF 21 No. 24). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because his case was “accepted” and 22 Defendant was served; because he has made numerous attempts to obtain an attorney; and 23 because, due to COVID-19, he has been placed in special housing and is not allowed to leave his 24 cell, so he has no access to the law library. 25 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 26 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 27 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 1 | 490 US. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 2 | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 3 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 4 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 5 | “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 6 | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 7 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 8 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 9 || reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that 10 | Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can 11 | adequately articulate his claims. 12 Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his motion for appointment of 13 | 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 is DENIED without prejudice. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 | Dated: _ October 28, 2020 [sf ey — 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28