(PC) Stone v. Pfieffer

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 17, 2025
• Docket: 1:21-cv-01461
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADAM JAY STONE, No. 1:21-cv-01461-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (ECF No. 197) 14 C. PFEIFFER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Adam Jay Stone is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is currently set for jury trial on April 29, 2025. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed January 20 15, 2025. 21 As Plaintiff is aware, does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this 22 action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any 23 attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States 24 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain 25 exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 26 section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 27 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 28 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 1 | “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 2 | onthe 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). 4 The Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff requests 5 || appointment of counsel because: (1) he does not have proper access to law library, photocopies, 6 | and supplies; (2) lack of access to witnesses; (3) the evidentiary issues in the case are complex; 7 | and (4) he has been unable to retain counsel. (ECF No. 197.) The Court has considered 8 | Plaintiff's request, but does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed 9 | that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is 10 | not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed almost daily by prisoners who are 11 || proceeding pro se who must obtain discovery, research different legal claims, and proceed to a 12 | trial before a jury. These plaintiffs also must litigate their cases without the assistance of counsel. 13 | Indeed, the extensive record in this case reflects that Plaintiff is fully capable of litigating this 14 | case pro se in a jury trial, as he has filed a motion for attendance of incarcerated, motion for 15 | attendance of unincarcerated witnesses, and a pretrial statement without the assistance of counsel. 16 | (ECF Nos. 190, 191, 198.) In addition, Plaintiff is proceeding on a simple claim of excessive 17 | force which is not complex. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is 18 | DENIED. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 21 | Dated: _January 17, 2025 _ ef STANLEY A. BOONE 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28