(PC) Cruz v. Baker

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ, 1:19-cv-0995-DAD-GSA-PC 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 (ECF No. 25.) vs. B. BAKER, Defendant.

19 On January 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

20 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 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 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.

26 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 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. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

3 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court cannot determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff’s excessive force claims are not are not complex, and a review of the record shows that Plaintiff is responsive, adequately communicates, and is able to articulate his claims. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

9 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated: February 4, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE