(PC) Martin v. Castillo

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 10, 2022
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00002
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JARED ANDREW MARTIN, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-00002-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 D. CASTILLO, et al., ) ) (ECF No. 3) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 )

17 Plaintiff Jared Andrew Martin is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Plaintiff filed the instant action on January 3, 2022, along with a separate motion for 20 appointment of counsel. 21 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 22 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff 23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District 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 1525. 26 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 27 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 28 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the 1 || merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 2 || legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 3 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it 4 || assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if 5 || proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with similar cases 6 || almost daily. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited 7 || law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for 8 || voluntary assistance of counsel. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to 9 || his pro se status and his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the 10 || appointment of counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most 11 || actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a 12 || position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) The test is whether exception 13 || circumstances exist and here, they do not. The Court has yet to screen Plaintiff's complaint and 14 || cannot make a finding that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. However, based on a cursory 15 || review of the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff has adequately presented his claims. Accordingly, 16 || Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice. 17 18 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. Al (ee 19 Dated: _ January 10, 2022 OF 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28