(PC) De La Cruz v. Newsom

Opinion

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE MIGUEL DE LA CRUZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-00997-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 OSCAR GALLOWAY, et al., (ECF No. 49)

Defendants.

17 18 Jose Miguel Da Le Cruz (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 21 49). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; because his 22 imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate; because the issues involved in this case are 23 complex; because this case will require significant research and investigation; because Plaintiff 24 has limited knowledge of the law; because Plaintiff only has a “6.2 level of education;” because 25 this case will likely involve conflicting testimony, and counsel would better enable Plaintiff to 26 present evidence and cross-examine witnesses; and because Plaintiff has made repeated efforts to 27 obtain a lawyer. 28 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 1 | Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 2 | (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 3 | U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 4 | 490 USS. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 5 | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 6 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 7 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 8 | “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 9 | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 10 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 11 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 12 || reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that 13 | Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can 14 | adequately articulate his claims. 15 Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his motion for appointment of 16 | pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 17 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro 18 | bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 | Dated: _ June 21, 2022 [Je ey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28