Filed: Dec. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO COUNSEL (ECF NO. 21) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Kevin Allen ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On December 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. 1 (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability t
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO COUNSEL (ECF NO. 21) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Kevin Allen ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On December 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. 1 (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO COUNSEL
(ECF NO. 21)
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
Kevin Allen ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for appointment of pro bono counsel.1 (ECF No. 21).
Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate; he is illiterate; he has a TABE Reading Score of 0.7, 0.7, 01, 2.4; he has dyslexia; expert testimony will likely be required; and he has a great likelihood of success on the merits.
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether "exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has reviewed the record in this case, and the Court still cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, based on the record in this case, it appears that Plaintiff (with the assistance he is currently getting) can adequately articulate his claims.
Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his motion for appointment of pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
