(PC) Ray v. Petras

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY D. RAY, Case No. 2:19-cv-01865-KJM-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL v.

ECF No. 45

ONGNEN PETRAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed his fourth motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 45. As previously explained to plaintiff, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to represent him. See Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); 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 (nternal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Having considered these factors, the court again finds that there are no exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 45, is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ February 5, 2021 Q————.

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE