(PC) Suarez v. Clark ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE ALFREDO SUAREZ, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-00160-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 KEN CLARK, ) ) (ECF No. 7) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Jose Alfredo Suarez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed February 14, 20 2022. Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; his 21 imprisonment limits his ability to litigate the action; he has limited knowledge of the law and access to 22 the law library; he is housed in the security housing unit; a trial would likely involve conflicting 23 testimony; and he has limited knowledge of the English language. (ECF No. 7.) 24 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 25 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 26 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 27 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the 28 voluntary assistance of counsel 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 on thi 4 || merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of th 5 || legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 6 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it 7 || assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if 8 || proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with similar cases 9 || almost daily. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se status an 10 || his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel. See 11 || Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most actions require development of 12 || further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the 13 || facts necessary to support the case.”) The test is whether exception circumstances exist and here, the 14 do not. At this early stage of the litigation, the Court cannot find Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the 15 || merits, as it has yet to screen Plaintiff's complaint. In addition, circumstances common to most 16 || prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional 17 || circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Finally, while the 18 || Court has yet to screen Plaintiff's complaint, the Court has conducted a cursory review of the 19 || complaint and finds that the legal issues present in this action are not complex and that Plaintiff is abl 20 || to clearly articulate his claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is 21 || denied, without prejudice. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. A (re 24 lI pated: _ February 16, 2022 OF 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28