(PC) Hodge v. Taylor ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON ROBERT HODGE, Case No. 2:19-cv-01956-JAM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO BE EXCUSED FROM PAYING THE 13 v. FILING FEE AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND GRANTING 14 KEVIN RUETER, et al., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME 15 Defendants. ECF Nos. 63, 66, & 67 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis, has filed a 18 motion requesting that he be excused from paying the filing fee, ECF No. 63, and a motion for 19 appointment of counsel, ECF No. 67. 20 The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires all prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis to 21 pay the full amount of the filing fee, although payments may be made in increments. Williams v. 22 Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015); see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. 23 Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Under the PLRA, all prisoners who file IFP civil 24 actions must pay the full amount of the filing fee.”). Accordingly, plaintiff remains obligated to 25 pay the entire filing fee, and his motion, ECF No. 63, is denied. 26 As for his other motion, plaintiff has not shown that appointment of counsel is warranted 27 at this time. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see 28 Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to 1 | require an attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard vy. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 2 | 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 3 | US.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 4 | counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the court 5 | will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 6 | circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits 7 | [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 8 | legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 9 Having considered these factors, the court does find not that there are exceptional 10 | circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 67, is therefore 11 | denied. 12 Also pending is defendants’ motion for an extension of time to answer plaintiffs first 13 | amended complaint. ECF No. 66. Good cause appearing, defendants’ motion is granted. 14 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff's motion to be excused from paying the filing fee, ECF No. 63, is denied. 16 2. Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 67, is denied. 17 3. Defendants’ motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 66, 1s granted. 18 4. Defendants shall file an answer to the first amended complaint by no later than April 19 | 20, 2022. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ( q Sty - Dated: _ April 6, 2022 □□ 23 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28