(PC) Garces v. Gamboa ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LUIS MANUEL GARCES, Case No. 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO 12 v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 D. HERNANDEZ, et al., (ECF No. 67). 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Luis Manuel Garces (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF 20 No. 67). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; because 21 the issues involved in this case are complex and involve many defendants; because he does not 22 receive his legal mail in a timely fashion, and he cannot easily access the law library; because his 23 previous attempts to acquire pro bono counsel on his own were unfruitful; and because Plaintiff 24 has limited knowledge of the law and is illiterate in English. 25 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 26 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 27 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 28 1 | U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 2 | 490 US. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 3 | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 4 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 5 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 6 | “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 7 | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 8 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 9 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 10 || reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that 11 | Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can 12 | adequately articulate his claim. 13 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro 14 | bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ October 26, 2022 [sf hey 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28