(PC) Rysedorph v. John

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARED KRISTOPHER RYSEDORPH, Case No. 1:23-cv-00251-KES-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 v. (ECF No. 44) 14 JOHN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jared Kristopher Rysedorph (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and 18 in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds 19 on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendants Le and Banerjee for deliberate 20 indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 21 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, filed July 1, 2024. 22 (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff states that there are multiple exceptional circumstances present in this 23 case that preclude Plaintiff from adequately presenting, litigating, and ultimately pursuing his 24 goal of settling this case without the assistance of legal counsel. As there are many claims that 25 Defendants deny, extensive documentary discovery, depositions of prison officials, and access to 26 witnesses Plaintiff can no longer reach will most likely be necessary in order to prove those 27 claims. Plaintiff has no idea how to do this stuff. It is nearly impossible for one who is unlettered 28 in the law to argue issues regarding expert witnesses, personal involvement of multiple 1 defendants, the complex defense of qualified immunity, and the denial of Plaintiff’s 2 accommodations under federal disability statutes. Plaintiff lacks experience or education of 3 almost any legal principles, issues, and methods. Plaintiff only recently obtained a GED. 4 Plaintiff suffers from multiple mental and physical disabilities that push the proper handling of 5 such a complex case even further out of reach, including attention deficit disorder, major 6 depressive disorder, many complications of his celiac disease, and impaired dexterity of his 7 dominant hand. Plaintiff has sought to obtain the assistance of counsel from multiple attorneys, 8 and all of them have either declined to assist or have not responded. (Id.) 9 Defendants have not yet had the opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s motion, but the 10 Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 11 Plaintiff is informed that he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 12 this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other 13 grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to 14 represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. 15 of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may 16 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 17 1525. 18 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 19 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 20 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 21 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 22 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 23 The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but does not find the required exceptional 24 circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved, 25 would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed 26 almost daily by prisoners suffering from serious mental and physical disabilities who must also 27 conduct legal research, obtain discovery, and litigate their cases without the assistance of counsel 28 and with limited access to the law library. 1 Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 2 Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Although Plaintiff’s complaint was screened and 3 found to state cognizable claims, this does not mean that Plaintiff’s claims are likely to succeed 4 on the merits. Finally, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that 5 Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. 6 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 44), is HEREBY DENIED, 7 without prejudice. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

10 Dated: July 2, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28