(PC) Benoite v. Doerer

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHELTON BENOITE, Case No. 1:24-cv-01407-KES-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUED MOTION FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL J. DOERER, et al., (Doc. No. 15) 15 Defendants.

17 Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s construed motion to appoint counsel, filed on April 2, 2025.1 (Doc. No. 15, “Motion”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion.

20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, is proceeding pro se on his initial Complaint. (Doc. No. 1).

22 The Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (Doc. No. 4). On March 10, 2025, the Court issued its Findings and Recommendation, currently pending 1 Plaintiff titles his motion as a “Motion to Reconsider - Motion to Appoint Counsel.” A motion’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n v. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)). Instead, we “construe [the motion], however styled, to be the type proper for the relief requested.” Id. before the district court, denying Plaintiff’s motion to certify a class because a layperson, such as pro se Plaintiff, cannot adequately represent the interests of fellow inmates in a class action.

3 (Doc. No. 13 at 2 (citing Wallace v. Smith, 145 F. App’x 300, 302 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)).

4 On April 1, 2025, the Court issued its screening order, finding that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a federal claim (Doc. No. 14), to which Plaintiff has yet to respond. By his instant Motion, Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel because, as a layperson, he cannot represent the interests of a class. (Doc. No. 15 at 1).

8 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 9 The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to appoint counsel for people unable to afford counsel); see also United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (other citations omitted). However, motions to appoint counsel in civil cases are granted only in “exceptional circumstances.” Id. at 1181. The court may consider many factors to determine if exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel including, but not limited to, proof of indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his or her claims pro se considering the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id.; see also Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998).

23 Plaintiff has not met his “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.” Jones v. Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). At the outset, Plaintiff’s Complaint was not filed as a class action. Other than acknowledging that he may not litigate a class action pro se, Plaintiff’s motion provides no other reasons why the Court should appoint counsel.

27 Further, this case procedurally is at the earlier stages of litigation, so it is difficult for the Court to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Reed v. Paramo, No. 18CV361-JLS (LL), 2020 WL 2767358, at *1 | (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2020) (holding it was too early to determine plaintiff's likelihood of success | onthe merits because fact discovery had not been completed). Indeed, the Court after screening | the operative complaint, determined Plaintiffs initial Complaint failed to set forth sufficient | allegations to state a viable federal claim, but afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to file an | amended complaint. Thus, Plaintiff has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warrant || appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceedings.

8 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 9 Plaintiff's motion requesting the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED.

Dated: __April 4, 2025 Mihaw. fareh Zack 12 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE