Brookins v. Hernandez et al
Filing
87
ORDER DENYING 86 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/24/2020. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BARRY LEE BROOKINS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
M. HERNANDEZ, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
[ECF No. 86]
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel, filed on
19
20
Case No. 1:17-cv-01675-AWI-SAB (PC)
Plaintiff Barry Lee Brookins is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
June 23, 2020.
As Plaintiff is aware, there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand
21
22
v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to
23
represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the
24
Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances
25
the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113
26
F.3d at 1525.
27
///
28
///
1
1
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek
2
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
3
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the
4
merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the
5
legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
6
In the present case, the Court does find that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional
7
circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th
8
Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff requests the Court
9
appoint counsel based upon the following: the complexity of the case; his imprisonment greatly limits
10
his ability to litigate; he is unable to afford counsel; he has no legal education; and the appointment of
11
counsel would “bring forth all tangible pertinent records in discovery.” Mot. at 1-2. Plaintiff is
12
proceeding on an Eighth Amendment claim against Hernandez and Williams. Plaintiff contends
13
Hernandez and Williams should not have placed him on CSW after he passed their metal detector searches
14
and showed them a medical chrono indicating he could not take off his underwear, bend over, or squat for
15
an unclothed body search. The legal issues in this case are not complex, and Plaintiff has adequately
16
litigated this case to date. Although the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint were sufficient to state a
17
plausible claim for relief, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Indeed,
18
Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment on the merits of the Plaintiff’s claims, and
19
Plaintiff has filed a lengthy opposition. Thus, it is premature to determine that there is a likelihood of
20
success on the merits.
21
While a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se
22
litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative
23
complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of
24
counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28
25
U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner
26
“may well have fared better-particularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert
27
testimony.”) Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited
28
law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary
2
1
assistance of counsel. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s arguments are not exceptional
2
circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff second
3
motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated:
7
June 24, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?