(PC) Gosztyla v. Allison ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHANTELL GOSZTYLA, Case No. 1:22-cv-00763-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. No. 3) 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 3). Plaintiff, 18 who is a prisoner and has a civil rights complaint pending, argues that the Court should appoint 19 her counsel because she is incarcerated and indigent. (Id.). 20 The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See 21 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not 22 create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has 23 discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a 24 civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to appoint counsel for 25 people unable to afford counsel); see also United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 26 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (other 27 citations omitted). However, motions to appoint counsel in civil cases are granted only in 28 “exceptional circumstances.” Id. at 1181. The court may consider many factors to determine if 1 | exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel including, but not limited to, proof of 2 | indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 3 | or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Jd.; see also Rand v. 4 | Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en 5 || banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 6 Plaintiff has not met her “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.” Jones v. 7 | Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro 8 || se and is incarcerated, she faces the same obstacles all pro se prisoners face. Challenges 9 | conducting discovery and preparing for trial “are ordinary for prisoners pursuing civil rights 10 | claim” and cannot form the basis for appointment of counsel. Courtney v. Kandel, 2020 WL 11 1432991, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020). Additionally, Plaintiffs indigence does not qualify “as 12 | an exceptional circumstance in a prisoner civil rights case.” Montano v. Solomon, 2010 WL 13 | 2403389, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2010); Callender v. Ramm, 2018 WL 6448536, at *3 (E.D. 14 | Cal. Dec. 10, 2018). 15 While the procedural posture of this case is still in its infancy, Plaintiff has demonstrated 16 || she can capably file a motion and a complaint. Plaintiff has not shown exceptional circumstances 17 | to warrant appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceedings. Should this case progress and 18 | Plaintiffs circumstances change so that she is able to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, she 19 | may renew his motion for appointment at counsel at that time. 20 ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED: 21 Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED. 22 | Dated: _ June 29, 2022 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 24 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 35 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28