Valdez v. Zhang ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO VALDEZ, Case No.: 20-CV-736-JLS(WVG) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 DR. ZHANG, 15 Defendant. [Doc. No. 40] 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks appointment of an attorney or, in 18 the alternative, an interpreter. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 19 I. APPLICABLE LAW 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 || of counsel.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, so long as a pro se litigant, like Plaintiff in 8 || this case, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the 9 ||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 Il. DISCUSSION 15 Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel so that his appointed counsel can review 16 || Defendant’s documents and determine which should be produced in discovery. However, 17 || any appointed counsel would not be able to do what Plaintiff is envisioning. Just as Plaintiff 18 || would any documents that Defendant produces, appointed counsel would do the same. 19 || Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: October 15, 2021 Se 22 | Mh ™ 73 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28