(PC) Dennis v. Doser ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW M. DENNIS, 1:22-cv-00818-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 GENE DOSIER, et al., (Doc. No. 4) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Matthew M. Dennis’s motion to appoint counsel, 18 filed on July 5, 2022. (Doc. No. 4). Plaintiff simultaneously filed pro se prisoner civil rights 19 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel using 20 what appears to be a standard form that lists a litany of reasons to support appointment of 21 counsel, including but not limited to: his incarceration, limited access to the law library, layman 22 at law with little legal experience, inability to hire counsel, and complex claims at issue. (See 23 generally Doc. No. 4 at 1-9). 24 The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See 25 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not 26 create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has 27 discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a 28 civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to appoint counsel for 1 | people unable to afford counsel); see also United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 2 | 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (other 3 | citations omitted). However, motions to appoint counsel in civil cases are granted only in 4 | “exceptional circumstances.” Jd. at 1181. The court may consider many factors to determine if 5 || exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel including, but not limited to, proof of 6 | indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 7 | or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id.; see also Rand v. 8 | Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en 9 | banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 10 Plaintiff has not met his “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.” Jones v. 11 Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). Plaintiff's indigence does not 12 | qualify “as an exceptional circumstance in a prisoner civil rights case.” Montano v. Solomon, 13 2010 WL 2403389, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2010); Callender v. Ramm, 2018 WL 6448536, at *3 14 | (ED. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018). Normal challenges faced by pro se litigants do not warrant 15 | appointment of counsel. Siglar v. Hopkins, 822 F. App'x 610, 612 (9th Cir. 2020) (denying 16 | appointment of counsel because the plaintiff's “circumstances were not exceptionally different 17 | from the majority of the challenges faced by pro se litigants.”). Nor is Plaintiffs inability to find 18 | counsel “a proper factor for the Court to consider in determining whether to request counsel.” 19 | Howard v. Hedgpeth, 2010 WL 1641087, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2010). 20 Further, this case is at the early stages of litigation and the complaint requires a § 1915A 21 | screening. Should this case progress and Plaintiff's circumstances change so that he is able to 22 | demonstrate exceptional circumstances, he may renew his motion for appointment at counsel. 23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 24 Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED. °° | Dated: _ July 12, 2022 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 26 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 >