Vincent Alex DeLeon v. Steven Santiago

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00234
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 VINCENT ALEX DELEON, Case No. 1:24-cv-00234-KES-EPG (PC)

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, 12 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

13 STEVEN SANTIAGO, 14 Defendant. (ECF No. 47) 15 Plaintiff Vincent DeLeon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 16 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 On September 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 18 47). Plaintiff states that he is representing himself in this matter and is unable to adequately 19 represent himself due to his multiple disabling conditions that impair his ability to litigate this 20 case. (Id.). Specifically, Plaintiff claims he suffers from a combination of pre-existing military 21 service-related disabilities, prior violent trauma, and a traumatic brain injury the result of which 22 this action is based on. (Id.) 23 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 24 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 25 952 (9th Cir. 1998), even if he is indigent, and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent 26 Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the 27 Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 28 1 || circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 2 || 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 3 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 4 || volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. A finding of exceptional 5 || circumstances requires an evaluation of both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the 6 || ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 7 issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 8 At this time, the Court declines to appoint counsel for Plaintiff. After reviewing the 9 || record, the Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of 10 || his claims. Moreover, Plaintiff appears capable of clearly articulating his points, correctly 11 referencing binding authority to support those points, and arguing the legal issues of his case, 12 || without the assistance of counsel. 13 However, Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his request for 14 || appointment of counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 15 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of 16 || counsel (ECF No. 47) is DENIED without prejudice. 17 || rr IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 || Dated: _October 1, 2025 _ Fey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28