(PC) Scott v. Castillo ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK A. SCOTT, No. 1:20-cv-0598 ADA GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 DAVID CASTILLO, et al., (ECF No. 57) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The matter is at the 20 pretrial stage of the proceedings. 21 Plaintiff has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 57. For the reasons 22 stated below, the motion will be denied. 23 I. MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 24 In support of Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, he points, in part, to the 25 pretrial conference and jury trial that were scheduled for December 2023 and January 2024, 26 respectively. ECF No. 57 at 1. In addition, Plaintiff states that he lacks the education, 27 experience, and mental ability to present a case in a jury trial. Id. The need for help with cross- 28 examination, a lack of understanding of the rules of discovery, the complexity of this case, and 1 the lack of ready access to a law library are also reasons Plaintiff presents in support of the 2 motion. See ECF No. 57 at 2. 3 II. APPLICABLE LAW 4 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 5 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 6 circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 7 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 8 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 9 circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as 10 well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 11 legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not 12 abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 13 circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of 14 legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 15 warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 Although Plaintiff may be able to successfully litigate this case on its merits, the motion 18 will be denied for several reasons. First, the pending pretrial and trial dates have been vacated 19 due to the absence of a district judge to preside over the trial proceedings. See ECF No. 55 (order 20 vacating calendared trial dates). Consequently, Plaintiff has no need for assistance from an 21 attorney at this time. 22 However, even if this matter were moving forward to trial, the motion would still be 23 denied. This is because to date, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has a satisfactory 24 understanding of these proceedings. Specifically, since this matter was docketed in April 2020 25 (see ECF No. 1) (complaint) Plaintiff has filed the proper paperwork when directed to do so. See 26 ECF Nos. 9, 16 (filed in forma pauperis application and notice on how to proceed after Court’s 27 directive to do so). In addition, Plaintiff has been able to file his pretrial statement without the 28 assistance of an attorney. See ECF No. 49. 1 In sum, for the past two and a half years Plaintiff has been able to successfully manage his 2 case. Therefore, in light of the Palmer considerations, at this time, the Court finds that Plaintiff 3 has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the 4 appointment of counsel. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 6 counsel (ECF No. 57) is DENIED. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: November 27, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28