(PC) Ray v. Petras ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY D. RAY, Case No. 2:19-cv-01865-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 v. ECF No. 45 14 ONGNEN PETRAS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed his fourth motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 45. 19 As previously explained to plaintiff, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed 20 counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court 21 lacks the authority to require an attorney to represent him. See Mallard v. U.S. District Court for 22 the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary 23 assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to 24 represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a 25 means to compensate counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional 26 circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate 27 both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his 28 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 1 | (nternal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2 Having considered these factors, the court again finds that there are no exceptional 3 | circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for 4 | appointment of counsel, ECF No. 45, is denied. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 5, 2021 Q————. 8 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28