(PC) Fairchild-Littlefield v. Attinello ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GIGI FAIRCHILD-LITTLEFIELD, 1:19-cv-01579-JLT-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 vs. (ECF No. 33.) 14 ATINELLO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 2, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the 22 appointment of counsel. 23 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 24 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to 25 represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court 26 for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in 27 certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel 28 pursuant to section 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 her 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. 7 Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel to assist her in this litigation. This is not an exceptional 8 circumstance under the law. While the court has found that “[w]ith respect to Nurse Practitioner 9 Attinello, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges deliberate indifference,” this finding is not a determination 10 that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. (ECF No. 23 at 3:11-12.) Plaintiff’s medical 11 claims are not complex, and based on a review of the record in this case, Plaintiff can adequately 12 articulate her claims and respond to court orders. Thus, the court does not find the required 13 exceptional circumstances, and plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal 14 of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 15 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, 16 filed on August 2, 2022, is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: September 22, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28