Jorgenson v. Moore et al

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel Without Prejudice 55 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/28/2019. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

PAUL JORGENSON,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00817-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO
COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF NO. 55)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

Paul Jorgenson (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this action.
On January 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF

22

No. 55). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel, because

23

the issues involved in this case are complex, because he is not trained in law, because he has

24

extremely limited access to legal research, and because Defendants will be represented by

25

attorneys.

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Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952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

“exceptional circumstances exist, a 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 citation 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 is unable to make a determination that

12

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

13

adequately articulate his claims.

14
15
16
17

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.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 28, 2019

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2