(PC) Solvey v. Gates ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STANLEY H. SOLVEY, 1:19-cv-01444-JLT-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF 13 vs. COUNSEL (ECF No. 63.) 14 S. GATES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 On August 15, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for court-appointed counsel. (ECF No. 63.) 23 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 24 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent 25 Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the 26 Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 27 circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 28 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 1 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 2 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 3 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 4 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 5 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 6 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At 7 this stage in the proceedings, the Court finds it unlikely that plaintiff will succeed on the merits. 8 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment 9 are pending and may dispose of the case. Plaintiff alleges that he cannot afford to retain counsel 10 and his imprisonment severely limits his ability to effectively litigate this case. These are not 11 exceptional circumstances under the law. Moreover, based on the record in this case, the court 12 finds that plaintiff is able to adequately articulate his claims. Further, the legal issue in this case, 13 whether Defendant failed to provide plaintiff with sufficient pain medication, is not complex. 14 Therefore, plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later 15 stage of the proceedings. 16 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 17 is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: August 29, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28