(PC) Lewis v. Clark

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PAUL DIXON LEWIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00120-DAD-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ECF No. 11 KEN CLARK, et al., 15 Defendants.

18 Plaintiff Paul Dixon Lewis, a state prisoner without counsel, brings this action under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 3, 2020, he filed a motion requesting appointment of counsel. ECF No. 11. He submits that he suffers from a variety of medical ailments, has limited access to the law library, and cannot afford an attorney. Id. 22 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to represent plaintiff, see Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 26 296, 298 (1989). We may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the | court will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such | circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits | [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the | legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

5 | We cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are || present here. The issues raised by the complaint are not unusually complicated and, at this stage | of the proceedings, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.

8 The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice | sorequire. If plaintiff later renews his request for counsel, he should provide a detailed | explanation of the circumstances that he believes justify appointment of counsel. Accordingly, | plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 11, is denied without prejudice.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 ( Waban Dated: _ February 10, 2020 15 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | No. 205.