(PC) Sanchez v. Johnson ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MARIO SANCHEZ, Case No. 2:22-cv-00537-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AND TO 12 v. APPOINT COUNSEL 13 JOHNSON, et al., ECF Nos. 31 & 32 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time and asks that he be appointed counsel. 17 ECF No. 31. Plaintiff, however, does not identify the specific deadline he seeks to extend.1 His 18 motion is denied without prejudice. 19 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand 20 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an 21 attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 22 298 (1989). The court can request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 24 25 1 Plaintiff is reminded that pursuant to the January 31, 2023 discovery and scheduling order, all discovery must have been completed by June 30, 2023, and dispositive motions shall be 26 filed by November 3, 2023. ECF No. 30. If plaintiff requires additional time to comply with 27 these deadlines, he may file a motion to modify the January 31, 2023 discovery and scheduling order. Any such motion shall identify the deadline plaintiff seeks to extend and explain why 28 additional time is necessary. 1 counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. But without a means to compensate counsel, the court will 2 | seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 3 | circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits 4 | [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 5 | legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 6 Plaintiff asks that counsel be appointed because he has learning disabilities, he cannot 7 | afford counsel, and counsel will help him understand these proceedings. ECF No. 32 at 1. I 8 || cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are present 9 | here. The allegations in the complaint are not exceptionally complicated, and plaintiff has not 10 | demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. For these reasons, plaintiff's motion to 11 appoint counsel, ECF No. 32, is denied without prejudice. 12 Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that: 13 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and, ECF No. 31, is denied without 14 | prejudice. 15 2. Plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 32, is denied without prejudice. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ( 1 Oy — Dated: _ April 23, 2023 Q——— 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28