(PC) Medina v. Martinez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ROBERT MEDINA, JR. 1:23-cv-00935-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 11 v. PRO BONO COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 12 GUSTAVO MARTINEZ, et al. 13 Defendants. (ECF No. 6). 14 15 16 Plaintiff is confined at the Fresno County Jail and is proceeding pro se in this civil action. 17 Now before the Court is a single page filing from Plaintiff that, among other things, asks for an 18 attorney to help him with this case. (ECF No. 6). The Court construes this as a motion to appoint 19 pro bono counsel. 20 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court may request that an attorney represent an 21 indigent party in a civil case. However, the appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a 22 constitutional right, and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent a party. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 23 (9th Cir. 1998); Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 24 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 25 Court will seek the voluntary assistance of counsel only in the most serious and exceptional 26 circumstances. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, 27 “a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the 28 1 | [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” 2 | 7d. Gnternal quotation marks and citations omitted). 3 The Court has reviewed the record in this case, and at this time, the Court is unable to 4 | determine that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. As for Plaintiffs ability to 5 | articulate his claims, the Court notes that Plaintiff's complaint is comprehensible and appears to 6 || concern rather understandable allegations of excessive force and the denial of medical care. 7 Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to appoint pro bono counsel without g || prejudice. 9 The Court notes that Plaintiff's filing appears to also ask that Defendants be compelled to 10 || produce evidence, such as medical records and camera footage, related to the allegations in the 11 | complaint. To the extent that Plaintiff requests such relief, the Court will deny the request. 12 | Plaintiff has yet to submit a completed in forma pauperis application, which is required to 13 | progress this case. Plaintiff is reminded that his completed in forma pauperis application remains 14 | due within forty-five days of the Court’s June 26, 2023 order. (ECF No. 4). Assuming this case 15 | progresses, Plaintiff will later have the opportunity to seek discovery from Defendants. 16 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to appoint pro bono counsel (ECF 17 | No. 6) is denied without prejudice. Further, to the extent that Plaintiff's filing requests any other 18 | relief, Plaintiff's request is denied. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 | Dated: _ July 7, 2023 [Je heey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28