(PC) Stone v. Robinson ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICHOLAS SCOTT STONE, Case No. 1:19-cv-00703-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 v. ECF No. 12 14 T. ROBINSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff appears to seek the appointment of counsel in this case, 19 although he has submitted a California Superior Court form that does not apply to federal courts. 20 See ECF No. 12. As plaintiff has failed to articulate any basis for appointing counsel—except 21 that he cannot afford to pay—his motion for counsel is denied without prejudice. 22 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand 23 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an 24 attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 25 Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 26 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to 27 afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the 28 court will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 1 | circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits 2 | [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 3 | legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 The court cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of 5 | counsel are present here. The allegations in the complaint are not exceptionally complicated. 6 | Based on a review of the record, it is not apparent that plaintiff is unable to articulate his claims 7 | adequately. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, plaintiff has not demonstrated that he 8 || is likely to succeed on the merits. 9 The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice 10 | so require. If plaintiff later renews his request for counsel, he should provide a detailed 11 | explanation of the circumstances that he believes justify appointment of counsel. 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ( Waban Dated: _ October 29, 2019 15 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 | No. 204 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28