(PC) Anglin v. Pratti

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAYMOND ANGLIN, ) Case No. 1:19-cv-01334-NONE-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. ) FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE M. PRATTI, et al., ) ) (ECF No. 31) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Raymond Anglin is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed October 26, 2020.

21 Plaintiff 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 26 1525.

27 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 □□□ || merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate [her] claims pro se in light of the complexity of || the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

4 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff || contends that he is at a disadvantage in litigating this case because of his imprisonment and indigency || Even if it assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations || which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, her case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with || similar cases almost daily. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pr || se status and her incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of 10 counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most actions require || development of further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to || investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) Circumstances common to most prisoner: || 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. The test is whether || exception circumstances exist and here, they do not. At this point in the litigation, the Court cannot || find that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and Plaintiff has adequately litigated this action t || date. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice.

19 IS SO ORDERED.

A (Fe ll Dated: _ October 27, 2020 OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE