(PC) Barrett v. Ciolli ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANTHONY BARRETT, Case No. 1:20-cv-01802-NONE-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 A. CIOLLI, et al., (ECF No. 50) 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Anthony Curtis Barrett (“Plaintiff”) is a federal inmate proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics 18 Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 19 50.) For the following reasons, the Court will deny the motion. 20 According to the motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint counsel to represent him 21 in this case because Plaintiff is unable to afford counsel. (ECF No. 50.) Additionally, Plaintiff’s 22 imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate. (Id.) The issues involved in this case are 23 complex and will require significant research and investigation. (Id.) Plaintiff has limited access 24 to the law library and limited knowledge of the law. (Id.) A trial in this case will also likely 25 involve conflicting testimony, and counsel would better enable Plaintiff to present evidence and 26 cross-examine witnesses. (Id.)1 27 1 The Court notes that this is Plaintiff’s second motion requesting appointment of counsel. (See ECF No. 27.) 28 Plaintiff raised virtually identical arguments in his first motion, which the Court denied. (See id.; ECF No. 31) 1 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 2 | Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 3 | (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 4 | US.C. § 1915(e)C1), Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of lowa, 5 | 490 US. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 6 | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 7 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek g | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether g || “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 10 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 11 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” /d. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 13 reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that 14 Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can 15 adequately articulate his claims. 16 Plaintiff is not precluded from renewing his motion for appointment of pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (ECF 19 No. 50) is DENIED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 | Dated: __April 8, 2022_ isfy UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28