(PC) Singh v. Devine

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 8 — EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 9 — 10 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, Case No. 1:22-cv-00061-JLT-SAB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 12 v. FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 SHUBHANGINI DEVINE, (ECF No. 24) 14 Defendant. — 15 — — 16 — 17 Plaintiff Raghvendra Singh is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed August 20 15, 2022. Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel because his “case is unique and complex for 21 many reasons . . .” (ECF No. 24.) 22 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 23 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern 25 District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the 26 Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 27 F.3d at 1525. 1 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 2 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 3 | “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 4 | on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 5 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 6 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 7 | if it assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations 8 | which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with 9 | similar cases almost daily. While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to 10 | his pro se status and his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the 11 | appointment of counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most 12 | actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be 13 | in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) The test is whether 14 | exception circumstances exist and here, they do not. At this early stage of the litigation, the 15 | Court cannot find Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, as it has yet to screen Plaintiffs 16 | third amended complaint. In addition, circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of 17 | legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 18 | would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Finally, while the Court has yet to 19 | screen Plaintiff's complaint, the Court has conducted a cursory review of the third amended 20 | complaint and finds that the legal issues present in this action are not complex. Accordingly, 21 | Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice. — 22 — 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 24 | Dated: _August 17, 2022 _ Of 05 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —