(PC) Ramos v. Mayfield

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LEOBARDO ERIC RAMOS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01036-ADA-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE MAYFIELD, et al., (ECF No. 60)

Defendants.

18 Leobardo Ramos (“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 October 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 60). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he cannot afford counsel; because his imprisonment will greatly limit 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 and 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.

27 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have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 | (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 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.

5 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).

10 The Court will not order appointment of 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, while there may be some issues, it | appears that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claim.

14 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.

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

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 | Dated: _ October 14, 2022 [Jee heey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE