(PC) Fox v. Kim

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL ALLAHRAE FOX, Case No. 1:20-cv-00290-JLT-BAK-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ERNEST ZEIGLER, (ECF No. 49) 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 49.) As grounds, Plaintiff advises that the prison is on full quarantine due to a COVID-19 outbreak and he is unable to access the law library.

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. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, 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. 1 The Plaintiff’s motion does not indicate exceptional circumstances that warrant appointment of counsel. Even assuming that Plaintiff is not well-versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations, which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. At this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Moreover, based on a review of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims adequately. Id. Plaintiff has already filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 38), which is currently under advisement.

9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE