(PC) Jones v. Herath-Randeney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAQUICE JONES, Case No. 1:20-cv-01428-AWI-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE G. HERATH-RANDENY, et al., (ECF No. 51)

Defendants.

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

20 On June 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 51). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; because his imprisonment is greatly limiting 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 COVID-19; because he has limited knowledge of the law; because a trial in this case will likely 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.

28 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a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. | Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 | (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 | U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of □□□□□ | 490 USS. 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.

6 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).

11 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.

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: _ June 29, 2021 [Je ey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE