(PC) Mills v. Clarke ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRYL RAY MILLS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00498-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ECF No. 9 14 KEN CLARKE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Darryl Ray Mills is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 19 action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 20, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion requesting 20 appointed of counsel. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff submits that his case is complex, and that he lacks 21 legal education and ready access to legal materials. Id. 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constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand 23 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en 24 banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to 25 represent plaintiff, see Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 26 296, 298 (1989). This court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 27 1915(e)(1); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the court 28 4 OU UVTI OY ET MMU PC eer PY ee 1 | 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 counsel 6 || are present here. At this stage in the proceedings, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of 7 | success on the merits, and the issues covered in his initial complaint—while numerous—do not 8 | appear unusually complex. 9 Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 9, is denied 10 | without prejudice. The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the 11 | interests of justice so require. 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ( Waban Dated: _ April 24, 2020 15 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 | No. 205. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28