(PC) Brown v. Marroquin ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY E. BROWN, 1:21-cv-00087-ADA-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 vs. (ECF No. 25.) 14 MARROQUIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Bobby E. Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the 20 appointment of counsel. 21 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 22 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 23 represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court 24 for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 25 circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 26 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 27 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 28 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 1 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 2 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 3 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 5 Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel because he is being housed in administrative segregation 6 without access to his legal documents. This is not an exceptional circumstance under the law. 7 While the court has found that “Plaintiff’s Complaint states cognizable claims against Defendants 8 C/O Marroquin, C/O Campbell, C/O Chavez, and C/O Pompa for use of excessive force in 9 violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants C/O Marroquin and Sergeant 10 Espinosa for violation of the ADA,” this finding is not a determination that Plaintiff is likely to 11 succeed on the merits. (ECF No. 9 at 16:6-9.) Plaintiff’s excessive force and ADA claims are 12 not complex, and based on a review of the record in this case, Plaintiff can adequately articulate 13 his claims and respond to court orders. Thus, the court does not find the required exceptional 14 circumstances, and plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion 15 at a later 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: June 27, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28