Caruso v. Johnson et al

Filing 23

ORDER Denying 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/11/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

1:15-cv-00780-EPG (PC)

GINA CARUSO,

v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO
COUNSEL
(ECF NO. 21)

D. K. JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Gina Caruso (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

20

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a

21

request for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 21).

22

According to Plaintiff, she needs counsel appointed because she has no legal experience,

23

because she cannot afford counsel, because the law library only has a computer, which she does

24

not know how to use, because the case will require extensive discovery, because Plaintiff does not

25

have access to necessary witnesses and documents, and because Plaintiff has attention-

26

deficit/hyperactivity disorder, which limits her ability to focus.

27

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

28

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

113 F.3d at 1525.

6

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek

7

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

8

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of

9

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

10

In determining whether

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

11

The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. At this early stage in

12

the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the

13

merits. No defendants have been served. Additionally, while the Court has screened Plaintiff’s First

14

Amended Complaint and found a cognizable claim (ECF No. 18), Plaintiff has not yet informed the

15

Court whether she wishes to proceed only on the cognizable claim or if she will be filing a Second

16

Amended Complaint.

17

Moreover, based on the record in this case, it appears that Plaintiff can adequately articulate

18

her claims and respond to court orders. Plaintiff is advised that she is not precluded from renewing

19

her motion for appointment of pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.

20
21
22

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED
without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated:

April 11, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2