(PC) Cooley v. Sutton ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODERICK G. COOLEY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01804-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ECF No. 3 14 JOHN SUTTON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Roderick G. Cooley is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 18 rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion 19 requesting appointed of counsel. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff submits that he is unable to afford counsel. 20 Id. 21 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand 22 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en 23 banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and this court lacks the authority to require an attorney to 24 represent plaintiff, see Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 25 296, 298 (1989). This court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 26 1915(e)(1); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, we will 27 seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 28 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 | Wecannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are 5 | present here. The allegations in the complaint are not unusually complicated and, based on a 6 | review of the record, plaintiff appears able to articulate his claims adequately. In addition, at this 7 | stage in the proceedings, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 8 Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 24, is denied 9 | without prejudice. The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the 10 | interests of justice so require. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ( Waban Dated: _ January 13, 2020 14 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 | No. 205. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28