(PC) Rilurcasa v. State of California ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOM JON RILURCASA, No. 1:20-cv-01568-JLT-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. COUNSEL AND INTERPRETER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., (ECF No. 61) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion for appointment of counsel, filed 20 September 14, 2023. Plaintiff submits that he suffers from a learning disability and is not able to 21 articulate his complex legal claims. Plaintiff also claims that he is need of a sign language 22 interpreter. 23 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 24 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to 25 represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for 26 the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 27 circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 28 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 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, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 4 | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 5 | of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The test for 6 | exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiffs likelihood of success on the 7 | merits and the ability of the Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 8 | legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt 9 | v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as 10 | lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances 11 that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 12 Here, the record demonstrates that Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims and litigate 13 | this action, having several documents with the Court, including two amended complaints and an 14 || opposition to the motion to dismiss, even if he did so with the assistance of another inmate. (ECF 15 | Nos. 11, 21,47.) While the Court acknowledges the difficulties Plaintiff's limitations may pose 16 | for him in this action, Plaintiff has not shown extraordinary circumstances for appointment of 17 | counsel in order to retain a sign language interpreter as it clear from Plaintiff's July 28, 2023 filing 18 | that an interpreter has been provided. (ECF No. 58 at 2.) Plaintiff's speculation that the interpreter 19 | is somehow biased because he works for CDCR is unfounded and there is no evidence to support 20 | such allegation. Accordingly, Plaintiffs third motion for appointment of counsel and an interpreter 21 | is DENIED. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 24 | Dated: _ September 15, 2023 ; 35 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28