1

2

3

4

5 6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 ERIN LYNN PETERSON, Case No. 1:20-cv-00379-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 DR. VISHAL MANHAS, (ECF No. 30)

15

Defendant.

16

17 18 Erin Lynn Peterson (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On November 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. 21 (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; 22 because his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate; because the issues involved in 23 this case are complex; because he has limited access to the law library and limited knowledge of 24 law; and because a trial in this case will likely involve conflicting testimony. 25 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 26 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 27 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 1 | 490 US. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request 2 | the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 3 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 4 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 5 | “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 6 | the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 7 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 8 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 9 || reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that 10 | Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can 11 | adequately articulate his claim. 12 Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his motion for appointment of 13 | pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 14 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro 15 | bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: _ December 1, 2020 [sl heey 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28