(PC) Medina v. Martinez

[5] 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [8] 9 ROBERT MEDINA, JR. 1:23-cv-00935-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 11 v. PRO BONO COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 12 GUSTAVO MARTINEZ, et al. 13 Defendants. (ECF No. 6). [15] 16 Plaintiff is confined at the Fresno County Jail and is proceeding pro se in this civil action. 17 Now before the Court is a single page filing from Plaintiff that, among other things, asks for an 18 attorney to help him with this case. (ECF No. 6). The Court construes this as a motion to appoint 19 pro bono counsel. 20 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1), the Court may request that an attorney represent an 21 indigent party in a civil case. However, the appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a 22 constitutional right, and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent a party. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 23 (9th Cir. 1998); Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 24 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the [25] Court will seek the voluntary assistance of counsel only in the most serious and exceptional [26] circumstances. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 . In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, [27] “a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [28] 1 | [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” 2 | 7d. Gnternal quotation marks and citations omitted). 3 The Court has reviewed the record in this case, and at this time, the Court is unable to 4 | determine that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. As for Plaintiffs ability to 5 | articulate his claims, the Court notes that Plaintiff's complaint is comprehensible and appears to 6 || concern rather understandable allegations of excessive force and the denial of medical care. 7 Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to appoint pro bono counsel without g || prejudice. 9 The Court notes that Plaintiff's filing appears to also ask that Defendants be compelled to 10 || produce evidence, such as medical records and camera footage, related to the allegations in the 11 | complaint. To the extent that Plaintiff requests such relief, the Court will deny the request. 12 | Plaintiff has yet to submit a completed in forma pauperis application, which is required to 13 | progress this case. Plaintiff is reminded that his completed in forma pauperis application remains 14 | due within forty-five days of the Court’s June 26, 2023 order. (ECF No. 4). Assuming this case 15 | progresses, Plaintiff will later have the opportunity to seek discovery from Defendants. 16 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to appoint pro bono counsel (ECF 17 | No. 6) is denied without prejudice. Further, to the extent that Plaintiff's filing requests any other 18 | relief, Plaintiff's request is denied. [19] IT IS SO ORDERED. [20] 21 | Dated: _ July 7, 2023 [Je heey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE