(PC) Reyna v. Kings County Jail ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN REYNA, 1:20-cv-00447-AWI-GSA-PC 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiffs, APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 (ECF No. 25.) vs. 14 KINGS COUNTY JAIL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 On September 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 21 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 22 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent 23 Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the 24 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 requests appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel, the issues in his 6 case involve legal complexities, and he has limited knowledge of the law. Plaintiff’s case stems 7 from allegations that Defendants retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment, and 8 this claim is not legally complex. At this early stage of the proceedings, the court cannot make 9 a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Moreover, a review of the Court’s 10 record, shows that Plaintiff is able to adequately articulate his claims. Even if it is assumed that 11 Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, 12 would entitle him to relief, his case does not appear exceptional. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion 13 shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 14 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 15 is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: October 11, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28