(PC) Benoite v. Doerer

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHELTON BENOITE, Case No. 1:24-cv-01407-KES-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUED MOTION FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 J. DOERER, et al., (Doc. No. 15) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s construed motion to appoint counsel, filed on 18 April 2, 2025.1 (Doc. No. 15, “Motion”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies 19 Plaintiff’s Motion. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, is proceeding pro se on his initial Complaint. (Doc. No. 1). 22 The Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (Doc. No. 23 4). On March 10, 2025, the Court issued its Findings and Recommendation, currently pending 24

25 1 Plaintiff titles his motion as a “Motion to Reconsider - Motion to Appoint Counsel.” A motion’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 26 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)). Instead, we “construe [the motion], however styled, to be the type proper for the relief 27 requested.” Id.

28 1 before the district court, denying Plaintiff’s motion to certify a class because a layperson, such as 2 pro se Plaintiff, cannot adequately represent the interests of fellow inmates in a class action. 3 (Doc. No. 13 at 2 (citing Wallace v. Smith, 145 F. App’x 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)). 4 On April 1, 2025, the Court issued its screening order, finding that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to 5 state a federal claim (Doc. No. 14), to which Plaintiff has yet to respond. By his instant Motion, 6 Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel because, as a layperson, he cannot represent the interests 7 of a class. (Doc. No. 15 at 1). 8 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 9 The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See 10 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not 11 create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has 12 discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a 13 civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to appoint counsel for 14 people unable to afford counsel); see also United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 15 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (other 16 citations omitted). However, motions to appoint counsel in civil cases are granted only in 17 “exceptional circumstances.” Id. at 1181. The court may consider many factors to determine if 18 exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel including, but not limited to, proof of 19 indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 20 or her claims pro se considering the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id.; see also Rand v. 21 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en 22 banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 23 Plaintiff has not met his “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.” Jones v. 24 Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). At the outset, Plaintiff’s Complaint 25 was not filed as a class action. Other than acknowledging that he may not litigate a class action 26 pro se, Plaintiff’s motion provides no other reasons why the Court should appoint counsel. 27 Further, this case procedurally is at the earlier stages of litigation, so it is difficult for the Court to 28 determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Reed v. Paramo, No. 18CV361-JLS (LL), 2020 WL 2767358, at *1 2 | (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2020) (holding it was too early to determine plaintiff's likelihood of success 3 | onthe merits because fact discovery had not been completed). Indeed, the Court after screening 4 | the operative complaint, determined Plaintiffs initial Complaint failed to set forth sufficient 5 | allegations to state a viable federal claim, but afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to file an 6 | amended complaint. Thus, Plaintiff has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warrant 7 || appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceedings. 8 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 9 Plaintiff's motion requesting the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED. 10 Dated: __April 4, 2025 Mihaw. fareh Zack 12 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28