(PC) Dixon v. Navarro ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DELMAR JEWELL DIXON, Jr., Case No. 2:19-cv-01966-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 v. ECF No. 33 14 DANIEL NAVARRO,1 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion that request that he be appointed counsel. ECF 19 No. 33. 20 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand 21 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an 22 attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 23 Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to 25 afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the 26 27 1 This action proceeds on the third amended complaint’s due process claim against defendant Daniel Navarro. ECF No. 22; see ECF No. 31. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is 28 directed to amend the case name to Dixon v. Navarro, 2:19-cv-01966-KJM-JDP. 1 | court will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 2 | circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits 3 | [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 4 | legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 5 The court cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of 6 | counsel are present here. The allegations in the complaint are not exceptionally complicated, and 7 | plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. For these reasons, 8 | plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 33, is denied without prejudice. 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 in this case. 12 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 33, is denied without 14 | prejudice. 15 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the case name to Dixon v. Navarro, 2:19-cv- 16 | 01966-KJM-JDP. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( 1 Sty — Dated: _ October 20, 2021 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28