(PC) Hawkins v. Gomez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICKY HAWKINS, Case No. 2:21-cv-02302-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 v. ECF Nos. 36 & 37 14 O. GOMEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed two motions asking that he be appointed counsel. 20 ECF Nos. 36 & 37. 21 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand 22 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an 23 attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 24 298 (1989). The court can request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 26 counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. But without a means to compensate counsel, the court will 27 seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 28 circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits 1 | [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 2 | legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 3 Including the two motions addressed herein, plaintiff has filed five motions for the 4 | appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 3, 10, 24, 36, & 37. In plaintiffs most recent filing, he argues 5 | that counsel should be appointed because the case is factually and legally complex, he has limited 6 || resources to investigate and try this case, and he is likely is to succeed on the merits of the case. 7 | ECF No. 37 at 3-4. I cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment 8 || of counsel are present here. As I mentioned in previous orders, the allegations in the complaint 9 | are not exceptionally complicated, and plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed 10 | onthe merits. For these reasons, plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel, ECF Nos. 36 & 37, are 11 denied without prejudice. 12 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel, 13 | ECF Nos. 36 & 37, are denied without prejudice. 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | q Sty — Dated: _ March 3, 2023 a——— 17 JEREMY D. PETERSON 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28