(PC)Hagan v. Recarey ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN HAGAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00562-JLT-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL 14 RAUL RECAREY, et al., (ECF No. 53) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Kevin Hagan is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On August 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF 20 No. 53). As grounds, he states, “Plaintiff presents exceptional circumstances as set forth. 21 Wherefore plaintiff requests this court request counsel to be appointed to assist Plaintiff in this 22 case.” (Id.). 23 As an initial matter, Plaintiff is already represented by counsel in this case. See ECF No. 24 1, 50. That counsel is Benjamin Meir Rudin. 25 Additionally, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this 26 action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other 27 grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent 28 Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the een ne ee ee IIE III IOI EID III IE mE 1 | Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 2 | circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 3 | 1915(e)C1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 4 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 5 | volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 6 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 7 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 8 complexity of the legal issues involved.” /d. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 9 The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel. For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro bono counsel (ECF No. 53) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2 2. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, in 13 addition to serving counsel for Plaintiff. 3. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Raul Recarey, Warden Landon 15 Bird, Kathleen Allison, Jason Pan!, and Chief S. Gates” from this case as defendants. '6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: _ September 3, 2024 [sl heey 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' The record reflects that Recarey, Bird, Allison, and Pan were terminated from this action on January 1, 2023. (ECF No. 21 at 14). 28 > The record reflects that Gates was terminated from this action on February 28, 2023. (ECF No. 25 at 2). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28