(PC) Quarles v. California State Prison Corcoran ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NIKKO JAVOR QUARLES, Case No. 1:19-cv-00109-AWI-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 13 v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 J. VELASQUEZ, et al., (Doc. No.30) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel filed January 3, 20 2022. (Doc. No. 30). Plaintiff, who is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeks appointment of counsel because 22 he “will need the expertise of trial counsel for trial.” (Id.). (Doc. Nos. 7, 24). The Court 23 previously denied Plaintiff appointment of counsel. See Doc. No. 15. Plaintiff articulates no 24 additional reasons in his current motion as to why the Court should appoint counsel in this matter. 25 The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See 26 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not 27 create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has 28 discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a 1 | civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to appoint counsel for 2 | people unable to afford counsel); see also United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 3 | 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (other 4 | citations omitted). However, motions to appoint counsel in civil cases are granted only in 5 | “exceptional circumstances.” Jd. at 1181. The court may consider many factors to determine if 6 || exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel including, but not limited to, proof of 7 | indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 8 | or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id.; see also Rand v. 9 | Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en 10 | banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 11 Plaintiff has not met his “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.” Jones v. 12 | Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro 13 | se and is incarcerated, he faces the same obstacles all pro se prisoners face. While the assistance 14 | of counsel during trial may be helpful, the “relevant consideration is not one of convenience” but 15 | rather exceptionalness. Howard v. Hedgpeth, 2010 WL 1641087, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2010). 16 Plaintiff has capably filed motions and his complaint has plausibly stated a claim to 17 | survive an initial screening. This case procedurally remains at the early stages of litigation. 18 | Should this case progress and Plaintiff's circumstances change so that he is able to demonstrate 19 | exceptional circumstances, he may renew his motion for appointment at counsel at that time. 20 ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED: 21 Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 30) is DENIED. 22 *3 | Dated: __Jamuary 5.2022 Mihaw. □□ fares Back 24 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 35 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28