(PC) Martinez v. Navarro, et al.

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING 32 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 02/18/2021. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

1:19-cv-00378 NONE-GSA (PC)

JOSE ANTONIO RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.

(Document# 32)

M. NAVARRO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On February 8, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

18

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

19

113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent

20

plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the

21

Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain

22

exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

23

section § 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

24

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek

25

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

26

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

27

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

28

complexity of the legal issues involved.
1

1

In the present case, plaintiff argues that it will be difficult for him to investigate the facts

2

of this case and present the case. He also argues that he suffers from mental health issues. These

3

conditions alone do not make plaintiff’s case exceptional. While the Court has found that

4

“Plaintiff states cognizable claims against defendants C/O E. Mares, Sergeant M. Navarro, C/O

5

Cruz, and C/O Navarro for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment,” this

6

finding is not a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. (ECF No. 17 at 6:5-

7

7.) Plaintiff’s excessive force claims are not complex, and based on a review of the record in this

8

case, plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. Thus, the Court does not find the required

9

exceptional circumstances, and plaintiff’s motion shall be denied without prejudice to renewal of

10
11
12

the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 18, 2021

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2