(PC) Sealey v. Cisneros ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DEAN MARTIN SEALEY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00253-ADA-EPG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT PRO BONO COUNSEL 12 v. (ECF No. 29) 13 DUSTIN FAGUNDES, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Dean Martin Sealey is a state prisoner appearing pro se in this civil rights action 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of 18 confinement claims against Defendants Steve Souza and Dustin Fagundes. (ECF Nos. 11, 25). 19 Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 29). As 20 grounds, Plaintiff states that he is incarcerated and cannot afford an attorney. 21 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 22 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 23 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 25 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 26 the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 27 28 1 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 2 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 3 | “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 4 | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 5 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” /d. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 6 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 7 || reviewed the record in this case and at this time the Court is unable to determine that Plaintiff is 8 | likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can adequately 9 | articulate his claims. 10 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro 11 | bono counsel (ECF No. 29) is DENIED without prejudice. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 26, 2023 [Je hey 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28