1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVAN BALTSAS, Case No. 1:24-cv-01278-JLT-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (ECF No. 22) 14 PFIEFFER, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Evan Baltsas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to

. This action proceeds on 19 Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant D. Nunez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 20 Amendment. Defendant D. Nunez answered the complaint on September 22, 2025. (ECF No. 21 18.) The case has been referred to post-screening ADR and is currently set for a settlement 22 conference on January 7, 2026. (ECF No. 20.) 23 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed on 24 October 21, 2025. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff requests the Court appoint him a lawyer under 25 “exceptional circumstances,” due to his lack of “federal court law knowledge.” (Id.) Plaintiff 26 alleges that four officers beat him while he was face down in handcuffs, he did not know how to 27 proceed against actions he could not clearly see, and he “only pursued against the one [he] saw.” 28 (Id.) 1 Plaintiff is informed that he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 2 this action, Rand v. Rowland,

(9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other 3 grounds,

, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to 4 represent plaintiff pursuant to

(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. 5 of Iowa,

(1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may 6 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand,

1525. 8 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 9 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 10 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 11 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 12 complexity of the legal issues involved.”

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 13 The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion, but does not find the required exceptional 14 circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved, 15 would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed 16 almost daily by prisoners with limited legal training or understanding of the law. 17 Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 18 Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Although Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim, this 19 does not mean that Plaintiff will prevail at trial. Further, based on a review of the record in this 20 case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. 21 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 22), is HEREBY 22 DENIED without prejudice. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24

25 Dated: October 22, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26

27 28