Shafirovich v. Trump

Opinion

ARKADY SHAFIROVICH, Case No. 1:20-cv-01343-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. (ECF No. 2) DONALD JOHN TRUMP, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT PRO BONO LAWYER Defendants. WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF No. 3)

Plaintiff, Arkady Shafirovich, is proceeding pro se in this action. (ECF No. 1). On September 21, 2020, Plaintiff submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and a motion to appoint a pro bono lawyer (ECF No. 3). For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion to appoint a pro bono lawyer is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. With respect to Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff has made the requisite showing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. As to the status of the complaint, Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of a pro se complaint filed in forma pauperis to determine whether it is legally sufficient under the applicable pleading standards. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, if the Court determines that the complaint is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies in the complaint can be cured by amendment. The complaint will be screened in due course and Plaintiff will be served with the resulting order. With respect to Plaintiff’s motion for counsel, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the “district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle Plaintiff to relief, Plaintiff’s case is not exceptional. The Court has conducted a brief review of Plaintiff’s complaint and cannot find, at this point, that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. In addition, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate Plaintiff’s claims. Id. \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ wOAOe 4: UVM EOTOPAE NSOMUC eA

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion to appoint pro bono counsel (ECF No. 3) be DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. S| Dated: _September 24, 2020 [Je hey □□ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE