(PC) King v. Clark ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY LOUIS KING, 1:23-cv-00805 GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 K. CLARK, et al., (Document# 8) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On December 19, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of 18 counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 19 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for 20 the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in 21 certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel 22 pursuant to section § 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 23 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 24 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 25 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 26 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 27 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 28 1 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. At this 2 stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed 3 on the merits. Plaintiff’s complaint awaits the court’s screening required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 4 Thus, to date the court has not found any cognizable claims in plaintiff’s complaint for which to initiate service of process, and no other parties have yet appeared. The legal issues in this case, 5 whether defendants used excessive force against plaintiff, retaliated against Plaintiff, tampered 6 with his mail, failed to process his appeals, violated his rights to equal protection, or failed to 7 provide him with adequate medical treatment, are not complex. Moreover, based on a review of 8 the record in this case, the court finds that plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. 9 Therefore, plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later 10 stage of the proceedings. 11 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 12 DENIED, without prejudice. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: May 26, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28