(PC) Sharpe v. Sherman, et al.

Filing 81

ORDER DENYING 80 Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/17/2021. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No. 1:19-cv-00711-DAD-EPG (PC) ADAM SHARPE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 C. CRYER, et al., 15 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF NO. 80) Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Adam Sharpe is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. 20 (ECF No. 80). Generally, Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because his incarceration 21 limits his ability to litigate, the issues in this case are complex, and Plaintiff has limited 22 knowledge of the law. (Id.) 23 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 24 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 25 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 27 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 28 the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 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, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 4 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 5 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 6 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 7 reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to determine that Plaintiff is 8 likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can adequately 9 articulate his claims, as evidenced, in part, by his successful opposition to Defendants’ motion for 10 11 12 13 14 summary judgment. (See ECF Nos. 65, 79). 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 (ECF No. 80) is DENIED without prejudice. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 Dated: November 17, 2021 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 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?