Jones v. Paramo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GERALD JONES, Case No.: 18-CV-2039-LAB(WVG) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 PARAMO et al., 15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 43] 16 17 Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel to prosecute this civil rights case. However, 18 the Court concludes appointment of counsel is not appropriate at this time. Accordingly, 19 Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 20 “There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.” Rand v. 21 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (partially overruled en banc on other 22 grounds). Thus, federal courts do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments 23 of counsel.” Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. 24 $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 25 Districts courts do have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 26 1915(e)(1), to request that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of 27 exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th 28 Cir. 2004). “A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance 1 requires at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff's success on the merits and 2 ||an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of 3 || the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 4 || 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th 5 || Cir. 1991). 6 The Court agrees that any pro se litigant “would be better served with the assistance 7 counsel.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, so long as a pro se litigant, like Plaintiff 8 |/in this case, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” 9 || the exceptional circumstances which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. 10 || Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when 11 || district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well 12 ||have fared better-particularly in the realms of discovery and the securing of expert 13 || testimony”). 14 Here, Plaintiff's reasons for requesting appointed counsel—lack of money to pay an 15 || attorney, his incarceration, and lack of legal knowledge—are not unique to him and are 16 |}common traits of prisoner plaintiffs. Nor is this case complex. Moreover, upon reviewing 17 || the Complaint, the Court concludes Plaintiff has been able to cogently articulate his claims. 18 || Were the Court to appoint counsel in this case, the exception would swallow the rule and 19 Court would be compelled to appoint counsel in every case. Petitioner’s request for 20 || appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: January 7, 2020 Se 23 | MJ J Es Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28