King v. Villegas et al

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING 25 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel Without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/11/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

JERRY LEE KING,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
R. VILLEGAS and P. CRUZ,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00676-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO
COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF NO. 25)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Jerry King (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

20

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion

21

for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 25).

22

Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he cannot afford counsel, he has limited

23

knowledge of the law, he has extremely limited access to the law library, he has no ability to

24

investigate the facts of this case, and the issues in this case are complex.1

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff alleges that this case is complex in part because he has a claim against
supervisors, as well as a medical care claim. However, this case is only proceeding “on
Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants R.
Villegas and P. Cruz.” (ECF No. 14, p. 2; ECF No. 20, p. 2).
1

1

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

2

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

113 F.3d at 1525.

8
9

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

10

“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, based on the complaint it

16

appears that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims.

17
18
19
20

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.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 11, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2