Zavala v. Valdes

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTONIO ZAVALA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01360-JLT-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. 5) ROBERT VALDES, 15 Defendant.

17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 5.)

18 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action.

19 Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this determination, the Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither consideration is dispositive, and they must be viewed together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn 789 F.2d at 1331.

28 Given that the complaint as currently pleaded fails to state any cognizable claims (see Doc.

1 4), the Court cannot adequately assess the complexity of Plaintiff’s case at this time to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist that would justify seeking counsel willing to represent plaintiff in this action on a pro bono basis.

4 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 5) is DENIED at this time without prejudice to its renewal at a later stage of this litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated: November 20, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE