Vanderbusch v. Enenmoh et al

Filing 35

ORDER DENYING 34 Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/5/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

GARY VANDERBUSCH,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

v.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01422-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO
COUNSEL
(ECF NO. 34)

JOHN CHOKATOS,
Defendant.

16
17
18
19

Gary Vanderbusch (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed

21

a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 34).

22

Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel, because

23

of the complexity of his case, because of his limited education, because he is unable to move

24

around a lot, because his mental state is one of depression, and because Plaintiff believes that he

25

has a good case.

26

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

27

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952

28

(9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28
1

1

U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,

2

490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances

3

the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand,

4

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

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the 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. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

10

The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has

11

reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff

12

is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Moreover, based on the record in this case, it appears

13

that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claim and respond to Court orders.

14
15
16
17

Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing the motion for appointment of pro
bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro
bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 5, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2