(PC) Curley v. Clark ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN CURLEY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00453-JLT-BAK-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. COUNSEL 14 CLARK, et al., (ECF No. 23) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Kevin Curley is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a second motion seeking the appointment of counsel, 19 in response to the Court’s Order of Clarification. (ECF No. 23.) 20 As previously discussed, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed 21 counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court 22 cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. 23 U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The Court may request the 24 voluntary assistance of counsel under section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, 25 without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 26 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 27 exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 28 /// 1 | the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 2 | of the legal issues involved. Id. 3 Plaintiff's motion does not indicate exceptional circumstances that warrant appointment 4 | of counsel. Even assuming that Plaintiff is not well-versed in the law and that he has made 5 | serious allegations, which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This 6 | Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. At this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot 7 | make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Moreover, based on a 8 | review of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims adequately. □□□ 9 | Plaintiff has already filed a First Amended Complaint, which will be screened in due course. 10 | (Doc. 15, ex. 1.) 11 Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion for the 12 || appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 23.) 13 14 | IT IS SO ORDERED. A (re 'S | Dated: _ January 25, 2022 OF 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28