(PC) Lewis v. Welsh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TYRONE LEWIS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01468-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE WELSH, et al., (ECF NO. 14)

Defendants.

18 Tyrone Lewis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action.

20 On May 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; because his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate; because the issues involved in this case are complex; because Plaintiff has limited access to the law library due to COVID-19 restrictions; because Plaintiff has limited knowledge of the law; and because a trial in this case will likely involve conflicting testimony and counsel would better enable Plaintiff to present evidence and cross examine witnesses.

27 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have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 4:40 UV VETO NS MMIC Aw PI ee YY ev | (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 21 US.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, | 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.

5 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).

10 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.

14 If Plaintiff needs additional time to respond to a deadline due to COVID-19 restrictions, | he may file a motion for an extension of that deadline.

16 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.

18 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.

22 | Dated: _ May 6, 2020 [Je hey 73 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE