(PC) Ramsey v. Dickerson

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 DAVID BRANDON RAMSEY, 1:19-cv-00666-DAD-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 vs. (ECF No. 35.)

14 C/O A. DICKERSON, et al., 15 Defendants.

18 David Brandon Ramsey (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 14, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 35.)

21 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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (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.

27 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).

4 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

5 Plaintiff’s case stems from allegations that the defendants used excessive force against him, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. At this early stage of the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s excessive force claims are not complex and based on the record, Plaintiff is able to adequately articulate his claims and respond to court orders. Even if it is assumed 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 does not appear exceptional. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Dated: February 7, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE