(PC) Cone v. Gamble III

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 8, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00799
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRIS MONROE CONE, Case No. 1:24-cv-00799-BAM (PC) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 9 v. (ECF No. 11) 10 GAMBLE III, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Chris Monroe Cone (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma 14 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint has not yet been 15 screened. (ECF No. 1.) 16 On August 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, which included a note 17 stating: “SATF Mental Health Doctor Ms. Thorpe request I ask for Help via private lawyer 18 provided by Court Due to current physical/mental health disabilities.” (ECF No. 11.) The Court 19 construes Plaintiff’s note as a renewed request for appointment of counsel. 20 Plaintiff is reminded that he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 21 this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other 22 grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to 23 represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. 24 of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may 25 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 26 1525. 27 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 28 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 1 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 2 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 3 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but does not find the required exceptional 5 circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved, 6 would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed 7 almost daily by prisoners suffering from mental and physical health disabilities who must also 8 conduct legal research, obtain discovery, and litigate their cases without the assistance of counsel. 9 Plaintiff has not presented any support for his renewed request that he did not already raise in his 10 prior two requests for appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.) 11 Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 12 Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened to 13 determine whether it states a cognizable claim. Finally, based on a review of the record in this 14 case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. 15 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s renewed motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 11), is HEREBY 16 DENIED, without prejudice. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18

19 Dated: August 8, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28