(PC) Coria v. Garcia ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO CORIA, JR., 1:20-cv-01652-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 M. GARCIA, et al., (Document# 5) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 20, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 18 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 19 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District 21 of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 22 circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 23 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 24 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 25 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 26 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 27 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 28 of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 1 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this 2 early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to 3 succeed on the merits. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on November 20, 2020, less than two weeks 4 ago, and the Complaint awaits the court’s screening required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Thus, to date 5 the court has not found any cognizable claims in plaintiff’s Complaint for which to initiate service 6 of process, and no other parties have yet appeared. Moreover, based on a review of the record in 7 this case, the court finds that plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. Therefore, plaintiff’s 8 motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the 9 proceedings. 10 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 11 DENIED, without prejudice. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: December 1, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28