(PC) Brookins v. Dwivedi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY L. BROOKINS, 1:18-cv-00645-DAD-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL vs. (ECF No. 88.)

RAJENDRA DWIVEDI,

Defendant.

On July 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113

20 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.

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).

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. On June 10, 2021, the court entered findings and recommendations, recommending that defendant Dwivedi’s motion to dismiss this case as barred by the statute of limitations be granted. (ECF No. 83.) Based on the findings and recommendations, the court has determined that Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits and has recommended that the case be dismissed. The statute of limitations issue is 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.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE