(PC) Nuno v. Eslick

Opinion

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

11 GUILLERMO NUNO, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-00769-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. ) FOR APPOINMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 ESLICK, et al., ) ) (ECF No. 3) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 )

18 Plaintiff Guillermo Nuno is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983. 20 Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on May 13, 2021, along with a separate motion requesting 21 appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.) 22 The Court notes that Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this 23 action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require any 24 attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District 25 Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nevertheless, in certain exceptional 26 circumstances, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1). 27 Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 28 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining 1 || whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of 2 || success on 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). “Neithe 4 || of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 5 || F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on Plaintiff. 6 || Id. 7 The Court has considered Plaintiff's request, but does not find the required exceptional 8 || circumstances. Initially, circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education, 9 || limited law library access, and lack of funds to hire counsel, do not alone establish the exceptional 10 || circumstances that would warrant appointment of counsel. Further, the Court has yet to screen 11 || Plaintiff's complaint and cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits 12 || Moreover, based on a cursory of the complaint, the legal issues involved in this case do not appear to 13 || be particularly complex and the Court finds that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. 14 || Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice. 15 16 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. A (Fe 17 || Dated: _May 14, 2021 OF 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28