(PC) Washington v. Yaplee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT WASHINGTON, Case No. 1:20-cv-01356-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE STEVEN M. YAPLEE, (ECF No. 47)

Defendant.

18 Robert Washington (“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 August 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 47). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; because the issues involved in this case are complex; because Plaintiff is “under” the Americans with Disabilities Act; because the paralegal that Plaintiff asked to help him backed out after agreeing to help; because Plaintiff has no knowledge of the law or federal court rules; because this case involves medical issues that may require expert testimony; because Plaintiff has demanded a jury trial; because this case will require depositions of witnesses; because the testimony in this case will be in sharp conflict; because Plaintiff has no high school education and no legal education; and because Plaintiff’s case has merit.

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a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. | Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 | (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 4} USC. § 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 The Court notes that Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 37), and | Plaintiff has already filed his opposition (ECF No. 45). If the motion for summary judgment is || denied, Plaintiff may renew his motion for appointment of pro bono counsel.

19 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro | bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

0 IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 | Dated: _ August 2, 2022 [see ey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE