(PC) Randolph v. Lozovoy

Opinion

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLIN M. RANDOLPH, Case No. 1:16-cv-01528-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL 14 R. LOZOVOY, (ECF NO. 65)

Defendant.

17 18 Colin Randolph (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF 21 No. 65). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he will be unable to “properly and 22 persuasively” cross-examine Defendant; because Plaintiff is unable to afford counsel; because 23 Plaintiff has attempted to obtain counsel but has been unable to; and because documents relevant 24 to this case were taken from Plaintiff.1 25 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 26 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 27 1 Plaintiff does not list any documents, or explain why the documents are relevant to his case. 28 1 | (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 21 US.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 3 | 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 4 | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 5 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 6 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 7 | “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 8 | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 9 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 10 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel. Plaintiff did not provide any 11 | evidence suggesting that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Moreover, the Court 12 || has reviewed the record in this case, and the Court is unable to make a determination that Plaintiff 13 | is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Additionally, it appears that Plaintiff can 14 | adequately articulate his claim. 15 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro bono counsel 16 | is DENIED. 17

19 | Dated: _ October 17, 2019 [see ey — 20) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28