(PC) Anglin v. Pratti ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND ANGLIN, ) Case No. 1:19-cv-01334-JLT-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD 13 v. ) MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 M. PRATTI, et al., ) ) (ECF No. 53) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Raymond Anglin is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion for appointment of counsel, filed May 13, 20 2022. 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), and the Court cannot require any attorney to represent 23 plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern 24 District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court 25 may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 26 1525. 27 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 28 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 1 || “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on □□□ 2 || merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate [her] claims pro se in light of the complexity of 3 || the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff 5 || contends that he is unable to afford counsel, his imprisonment greatly limits his ability to prosecute tl 6 || case, a trial will likely involve conflicting testimony and counsel could better enable Plaintiff to 7 || present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to obtain a 8 || lawyer. Even if it assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious 9 || allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, her case is not exceptional. The Court is 10 || faced with similar cases almost daily. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage 11 || due to his pro se status and her incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the 12 || appointment of counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most 13 || actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a 14 || position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) Circumstances common to 15 || most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 16 || exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. A revie\ 17 || of the docket in this case reflects that Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims and prosecute this actior 18 || which proceeds on claims of excessive force and failure to intervene. Accordingly, Plaintiff's third 19 || motion for the appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice. 20 21 □□ IS SO ORDERED. A (Fe 22 ated: _May 17, 2022 OF 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28