(PC) Fairfield v. Corpuz ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELISSA FAIRFIELD, Case No. 1:19-cv-00632-DAD-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. No. 50) 14 A. KHOO, I. SINGH, S. SINGH, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter comes before the court upon initial review of this case that was reassigned to 18 the undersigned on November 17, 2020. (See Doc. No. 51). Pending review is, inter alia, plaintiff’s 19 motion to appoint counsel filed November 2, 2020. (Doc. No. 50). Plaintiff Melissa Fairfield is 20 currently incarcerated at the Central California Women’s Facility and is proceeding pro se on her 21 civil rights complaint filed on May 9, 2019. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis 22 status. (Doc. No. 5). 23 The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See 24 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not 25 create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has 26 discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a civil 27 action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to appoint counsel for people 28 unable to afford counsel); see also United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978) 1 | (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (other 2 | citations omitted). However, motions to appoint counsel in civil cases are granted only in 3 | “exceptional circumstances.” Jd. at 1181. The court may consider many factors including, but not 4 | limited to, proof of indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff 5 | to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, to 6 | determine if exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel. Jd.; see also Rand vy. 7 | Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en 8 | banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 9 In support of her motion, plaintiff argues that she needs counsel due to the complexity of 10 | her case and because she is a layperson to the law. (See generally Doc. No. 50). The court does 11 | not find exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel for plaintiff. Although plaintiff 12 | is proceeding pro se and is incarcerated, she faces the same obstacles all pro se prisoners face. The 13 | court liberally construes pro se pleadings. A review of the docket further shows she is capable of 14 | adequately articulating her claims and seeking relief. Further, the complexity of the case and 15 | plaintiffs status as a layperson to the law have not impeded plaintiffs ability to litigate this case, 16 | as evidenced by plaintiff's multiple filings which cite legal authorities. 17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 18 Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 50) is DENIED without 19 | prejudice. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: _ March 24, 2021 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 23 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28