(PC) Fox v. Kim ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL ALLAHRAE FOX, Case No. 1:20-cv-00290-JLT-BAK-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. 14 ERNEST ZEIGLER, (ECF No. 49) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 49.) As 18 grounds, Plaintiff advises that the prison is on full quarantine due to a COVID-19 outbreak and 19 he is unable to access the law library. 20 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 21 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 22 represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. 23 of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel 24 under section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a reasonable method of 25 securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most 26 serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the 27 district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits and the ability of the 28 plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. 1 The Plaintiff’s motion does not indicate exceptional circumstances that warrant 2 appointment of counsel. Even assuming that Plaintiff is not well-versed in the law and that he 3 has made serious allegations, which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not 4 exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. At this stage in the 5 proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the 6 merits. Moreover, based on a review of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff is able to 7 articulate his claims adequately. Id. Plaintiff has already filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion 8 for summary judgment, (ECF No. 38), which is currently under advisement. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 10 counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: January 14, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28