(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 RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER 13 v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 KEN CLARKE, et al., ECF No. 15 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 24, 2020, the court denied plaintiff’s first 20 motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 11. On June 15, 2020, plaintiff moved for 21 reconsideration of that result. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff argues that his case is complex, that he lacks 22 the ability to litigate it fully, and that his claim is potentially meritorious. Id. Because these 23 arguments are similar to those presented in plaintiff’s original motion, ECF No. 9, we deny it for 24 the same reasons. 25 Again, plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see 26 Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on 27 reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court lacks the authority to require an 28 4: OU VOTO RAT MMU I Nhe PAY ee 1 | attorney to represent plaintiff, see Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 2 | Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Without a means to compensate counsel, the court will seek 3 | volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances 4 | exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the 5 | ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 6 | involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 7 || Once more, the court cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment 8 | of counsel are present here. At this stage in the proceedings, plaintiff has not demonstrated a 9 | likelihood of success on the merits, and the issues covered in his complaint do not appear 10 | unusually complex. The motion for reconsideration is denied. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. ° : \ prssanp Rae — Dated: _ June 18, 2020 14 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 | No. 205. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28