Luna v. Moon, et al.
Filing
78
ORDER DENYING, without Prejudice, Plaintiff's 77 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/17/2019. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
EDWARD LUNA,
9
10
11
12
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. MOON, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00313-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 77)
Defendants.
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff Edward Luna is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on
17
September 16, 2019. (ECF No. 77.) Plaintiff asserts that he needs the assistance of counsel to
18
prosecute this action because he cannot afford to hire a lawyer, his imprisonment greatly limits
19
his ability to litigate this case, especially regarding discovery, the issues in this case are complex
20
and he has never been a party to a civil proceeding before, and a lawyer would assist Plaintiff in
21
the presentation of evidence at trial and the cross-examination of opposing witnesses. (Id.) The
22
Court finds that a response from Defendants is unnecessary and Plaintiff’s motion is deemed
23
submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
24
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
25
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to
26
represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District Court for
27
the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nevertheless, in certain exceptional
28
circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1).
1
1
Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
2
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek
3
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.
In determining whether
4
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on
5
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity
6
of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Neither of
7
these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560
8
F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the
9
plaintiff. Id.
10
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request for appointed counsel, but does not find the
11
required exceptional circumstances. Initially, circumstances common to most prisoners, such as
12
lack of legal education, limited law library access, and lack of funds to hire counsel, do not alone
13
establish the exceptional circumstances that would warrant appointment of counsel. Specifically,
14
Plaintiff’s apprehension with pursuing this case on his own, while understandable, is not sufficient
15
grounds for appointing counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)
16
(“Most actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will
17
seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”). Finally,
18
based on a review of the record, the Court finds that the legal issues in this case do not appear to be
19
particularly complex and that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 77), is HEREBY
20
21
DENIED, without prejudice.
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 17, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?