(PC) Hounihan v. Villasenor ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON SCOTT HOUNIHAN, Case No. 1:23-cv-00163-ADA-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO 13 v. COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 JOSE C. VILLASENOR, (ECF No. 43) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Jason Scott Hounihan is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth 19 Amendment sexual assault claim against Defendant Villasenor based on Plaintiff’s allegations 20 that Defendant instructed medical personnel to inspect Plaintiff’s rectum for contraband even 21 though an x-ray revealed no contraband. (ECF No. 5). 22 On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF 23 No. 43). He states as follows: “This is a motion for appointment of counsel if possible because I 24 feel oppressed and discriminated against and not respected enough when it comes to me fulfilling 25 obligations. I feel as if an attorney represented me he would be more respected. Thank you for 26 your time.” (Id. at 1) (minor alterations for readability). 27 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 28 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 1 | (th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 | US.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 3 | 490 US. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 4 | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 5 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 6 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 7 | “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of g | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the g | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Jd. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 10 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 1] || teviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to determine that Plaintiff is 12 | likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can adequately 13 | articulate his claims. 14 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro 15 | Bono counsel (ECF No. 43) is DENIED without prejudice. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 is | Dated: _ October 4, 2023 [Je hey — 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28