(PC) Knight v. Nov

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BOBBY KNIGHT, Case No. 1:20-cv-01325-NONE-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE BOB EDWARDS, (ECF No. 28)

Defendant.

18 Bobby Knight (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20 On February 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate; because the issues involved in this case are complex and will require significant research and investigation; because he has limited access to the law library due to the COVID-19 outbreak; because he has limited knowledge of the law; because he is dyslexic and has no help; because he is unable to afford counsel; because a trial in this case will involve conflicting testimony and counsel would better enable him to present evidence and cross examine witnesses; and because he has made repeated efforts to obtain a lawyer, to no avail.

1 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a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. | Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 | (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 4} US.C. § 1915(e)(1).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.

7 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).

12 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 claim. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can || adequately articulate his claim.

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: _ February 23, 2021 [see hey — 73 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE