(PC) Torres v. Quick

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EDWARD TORRES, Case No. 1:22-cv-01536-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE JAYSON QUICK, et al., (ECF No. 3)

Defendants.

18 Edward Torres (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes state law claims.

20 On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel.

21 (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he cannot afford counsel; because his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate; because he has limited formal education and no knowledge of the law; because the issues involved in this case are complex and will require obtaining documents and video footage from Defendants, as well as significant research and investigation; because his institution of confinement has an inadequate legal research program; because a trial in this case will likely involve sharply conflicting testimony and counsel would better enable him to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses; and because his claims have legal 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a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. | Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 | (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 4} USC.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 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 claims. Moreover, while Plaintiff alleges that he has || received assistance, it appears that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims.

16 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.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 Dated: _ December 1, 2022 [sl ey 73 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE