(PC) Trujillo v. Alvarez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO, Case No. 1:14-cv-00976-LJO-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE MUNOZ and ALVAREZ, (ECF NO. 88)

Defendants.

18 Guillermo Cruz Trujillo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20 On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel.

21 (ECF No. 88). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he cannot afford to hire a lawyer; because his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate; because the issues in this case are complex; because Plaintiff has limited access to the law library and limited knowledge of the law; because a trial will likely involve conflicting testimony, and a lawyer would be able to assist Plaintiff in the presentation of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses; and because, despite repeated attempts to retain a lawyer, Plaintiff has been unable to find representation.

28 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. | Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 | (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 | U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of □□□□□ | 490 US. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

6 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether | “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

11 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has || reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that | Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can | adequately articulate his claims.

15 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.

17 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro | bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 | Dated: _ September 11, 2019 [Je ey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE