(PC) King v. Gant ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERRY LEE KING, Case No. 1:23-cv-00640-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 GANT, et al., (ECF No. 17) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Jerry Lee King (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se in 19 this civil rights action. 20 On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF 21 No. 17). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is entitled to use the discovery rules 22 on the same terms as other litigants as part of his Due Process right to a fair trial under the Sixth 23 and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id., p. 1). Plaintiff argues that he will not be allowed discovery 24 “because it pertains to CDCR staff’s information.” (Id.) Plaintiff requests appointed counsel so 25 that his constitutional rights can be protected. (Id., p. 2). 26 On August 28, 2023, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 21). 27 Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot show that there are exceptional circumstances 28 warranting appointment of counsel. (Id., p. 2). 1 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 2 | Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 3 | (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 4 1 US.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 5 | 490 USS. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 6 | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 7 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 8 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 9 | “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 10 | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 11 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 12 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 13 || reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that 14 | Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can 15 || adequately articulate his claims. 16 Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his request for appointment of 17 | pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 18 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro 19 | bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 | Dated: _ October 3, 2023 [Je hey 73 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28