(PC) Davis v. Harris ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNELL DAVIS, Case No. 2:19-cv-01976-JAM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ECF No. 43 14 B. HARRIS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion that request that he be appointed counsel. ECF 19 No. 43. 20 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand 21 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an 22 attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 23 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 25 counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the court 26 will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 27 circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits 28 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 Having considered these factors, the court does find not that there are exceptional 4 | circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that 5 | plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 43, is denied without prejudice. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 8, 2022 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28