(PC) Nino v. Munoz ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOE NINO, Case No. 1:20-cv-01722-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SUBMIT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. OR PAY FILING FEE 14 J. MUNOZ, et al., 45-DAY-DEADLINE 15 Defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 16 (Doc. 2) 17 18 Plaintiff has not paid the $400 filing fee for this action or submitted an application to 19 proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS 20 Plaintiff, within 45 days of the date of service of this order, to submit the attached application to 21 proceed in forma pauperis, completed and signed, or, in the alternative, pay the $400 filing fee. 22 No requests for extension will be granted without a showing of good cause. Failure to comply 23 with this order will result in dismissal of this action. 24 Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in this action (Doc. 2.) 25 Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions, Rand v. 26 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 27 represent a party under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 28 304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary 1 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 2 Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 3 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether 4 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 5 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 6 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 7 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 8 if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and has made serious allegations that, if 9 proven, would entitle him to relief, his case is not extraordinary. The Court is faced with similar 10 cases almost daily. In addition, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a 11 determination on whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; and, based on a review of 12 the records in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his 13 claims. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 14 without prejudice. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: December 9, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28