1

2

3

4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY A. SANCHEZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-01770-ADA-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 J. NUNEZ-RUIZ, et al., (ECF No. 31)

15

Defendants.

16

17 18 Anthony A. Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to

. 20 On March 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF 21 No. 31). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; because 22 his imprisonment and law library access will greatly limit his ability to litigate; because the issues 23 involved in this case are complex and will require significant research and investigation; because 24 Plaintiff has limited knowledge of the law and cannot obtain copies and forms to submit certain 25 documents and facts to the court; because a trial in this case will likely involve conflicting 26 testimony and counsel would better enable Plaintiff to present evidence and cross-examine 27 witnesses; and because Plaintiff has made repeated efforts to obtain counsel. 28 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 1 | Rowland,

(9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds,

2 | (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 3 | U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of □□□□□ 4 | 490 US. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 5 | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand,

. 6 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 7 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 8 || “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 9 | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 10 | complexity of the legal issues involved.”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 11 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 12 || reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that 13 | Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, while there may be some 14 || issues, it appears that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. 15 Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his request for appointment of 16 | pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 17 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro 18 | bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 | Dated: _ March 14, 2023 [Je ey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28