(PC) Jackson v. Quick

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CORNEL JACKSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01591-NONE-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE JASON QUICK, et al., (ECF NO. 28)

Defendants.

18 Cornel Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20 On October 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; because his incarceration has greatly limited his ability to litigate; because the issues involved in this case are complex and will require significant research and investigation; because Plaintiff has no access to a law library; because Defendants refuse to provide legal information or materials; and Plaintiff has no knowledge of the law; and Plaintiff has limited formal education and reading disabilities. Plaintiff also states that a trial will require cross-examination.

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have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 | (th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 21 US.C. § 1915(e)(1).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 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.

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 | entered findings and recommendations, recommending that this case proceed on certain of | Plaintiffs claims. At this stage, Plaintiffs case is not so exceptional as to merit the request for | pro bono counsel by the Court. In addition, it appears that Plaintiff has the ability to articulate his | claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.

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: _ October 20, 2020 [Je ey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE