(PC) Mondragon v. Unknown

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 13, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00887
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GIANCARLO MONDRAGON, Case No. 1:24-cv-00887-EPG (PC) 11 12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 UNKNOWN,

15 Defendants. (ECF No. 1)

16 Plaintiff Giancarlo Mondragon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 17 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Along with his 18 Complaint, Plaintiff included motion for appointment of counsel, supported by a Memorandum of 19 Points and Authorities, and a Declaration. (ECF No. 1 at 49–45). Plaintiff cites several reasons 20 why the Court should appoint counsel, such as inability to afford counsel, the need to engage in 21 discovery and issue subpoenas, hindered law library access, and confusion regarding Rules of 22 Civil Procedure applicable to this case. (Id. at 51, 55). 23 As Plaintiff himself acknowledges (id. at 53–54), he does not have a constitutional right to 24 appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), 25 withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require 26 an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States 27 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain 28 1 | exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 2 | section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 3 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 4 || volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 5 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 6 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 7 complexity of the legal issues involved.” /d. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 8 It is too early in this case to determine whether Plaintiffs likelihood of success on the

9 merits is such that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. The Court has not yet screened Plaintiff's complaint. Further, after the review of Plaintiff's complaint, it appears that the legal issues involved are not extremely complex and that Plaintiff is able to articulate the facts underlying his claims. 12 Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff's request for counsel without prejudice. 13 14 | ITIS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ August 12, 2024 [see hey 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28