(PC) Martinez v. Lewis et al

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/7/2019. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICARDO MARTINEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. LEWIS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00812-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
[ECF No. 20]

Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion for appointment of counsel, filed

20
21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

September 30, 2019.

22

As Plaintiff was previously advised, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed

23

counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot

24

require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States

25

District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain

26

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

27

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

28

///
1

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

1
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 not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it

7

assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if

8

proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with similar cases

9

almost daily. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se status and

10

his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel. See

11

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most actions require development of

12

further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the

13

facts necessary to support the case.”) The test is whether exception circumstances exist and here, they

14

do not. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law

15

library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary

16

assistance of counsel. In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional

17

circumstances. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s third motion for the appointment of counsel is denied, without

18

prejudice.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:

22

October 7, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2