(PC) Martinez v. Pfeiffer

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICARDO MARTINEZ ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01684-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 13 v. ) MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE C. PFEIFFER, et.al., ) ) [ECF No. 19] 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel, filed January 14, 2020.

22 As Plaintiff is aware, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 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.

28 /// 1 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, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on th || merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of th || legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

6 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiffs likelihood || of success on the merits and the ability of the Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the || complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. || 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most || prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional || circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. In the present case, || the Court does not find extraordinary circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel. For the || reasons stated in the January 7, 2020 screening order, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable || constitutional claim upon which relief may be granted. As a result, the Court is precluded from || making a finding that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. In addition, to date Plaintiff has || adequately litigated this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff's second motion for appointment of counsel i || be denied without prejudice.

19 || IT IS SO ORDERED.

A (ee |! pated: _ January 17, 2020 OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE