(PC) Diaz v. Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELIAS SERDA DIAZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-00745-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. No. 15) 14 TYLER, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on 18 September 30, 2024. (Doc. No. 15). Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel pursuant to the 19 Fourteenth Amendment and “due process of law.” (Id.). 20 Contrary to Plaintiff’s understanding, the United States Constitution does not require 21 appointment of counsel in civil cases. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining 22 Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1996), did not create a right to appointment of counsel in civil 23 cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an 24 indigent litigant to commence, prosecute, or defend a civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) 25 (stating the court has authority to appoint counsel for people unable to afford counsel); see also 26 United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review 27 for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (other citations omitted). However, motions to 28 appoint counsel in civil cases are granted only in “exceptional circumstances.” Id. at 1181. The 1 | court may consider many factors to determine if exceptional circumstances warrant appointment 2 | of counsel including, but not limited to, proof of indigence, the likelihood of success on the 3 | merits, and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his or her claims pro se considering the 4 | complexity of the legal issues involved. Id.; see also Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th 5 | Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 6 Plaintiff has not met his “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.” Jones v. 7 | Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). Other than seeking appointment on 8 || “due process grounds,” the Motion is otherwise silent as to what exceptional circumstances are 9 | present here to warrant appointment of counsel. Furthermore, until Plaintiff pays the $405 filing 10 | fee assessed, the Court will not screen Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Thus, at 11 || this procedural stage, the Court is unable to determine Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the 12 | merits. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 13 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED. 15 '© | Dated: _ October 1, 2024 Mihaw. Wh. foareh Zaskth 17 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ig UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28