(PC) Solorio v. Sullivan ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADRIAN SOLORIO, 1:19-cv-00688-NONE-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 vs. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 SULLIVAN, et al., (ECF No. 61.) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Adrian Solorio (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion 20 seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed 21 counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court 22 cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. 23 United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 24 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary 25 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 26 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 27 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 28 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 1 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 2 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 3 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 4 Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel, he is not 5 knowledgeable about the law, and his imprisonment will limit his ability to litigate. These are 6 not exceptional circumstances under the law. Plaintiff’s medical and excessive force claims are 7 not complex, and based on a review of the record in this case, Plaintiff can adequately articulate 8 his claims and respond to court orders. Thus, the court does not find the required exceptional 9 circumstances, and plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion 10 at a later stage of the proceedings. 11 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 12 is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: May 22, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28