Caputo v. Kern County Sheriff's Office

Filing 106

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel Without Prejudice 105 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/27/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

BRIAN CAPUTO,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
GONZALES, et al.,

Case No. 1:15-cv-01008-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO
COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF NO. 105)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

Brian Caputo (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner1 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On July 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No.

22

105, p. 12). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is not an attorney and is

23

unfamiliar with court proceedings.

24
25

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff was detained at Kern County Jail at the time of the incidents alleged in the
complaint. He is now incarcerated at FCI Marianna.
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. In determining whether

8

“exceptional circumstances exist, a 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

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

11

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

12

reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that

13

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can

14

adequately articulate his claims.

15
16
17
18

Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his 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.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 27, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2