(PC) Manafov v. Rosario

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VUSAL MANAFOV, Case No. 2:20-cv-00337-MCE-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AND TO v. APPOINT COUNSEL

D. ROSARIO, ECF No. 28

Defendant.

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion that requests an extension of time and appointment of counsel. ECF No. 28. As for the requested extension of time, plaintiff’s motion does not identify the specific deadline he seeks to extend. Accordingly, the motion for an extension of time will be denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff’s motion also fails to demonstrate that appointment of counsel is warranted at this time. 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), 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 26 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 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, the allegations in the complaint are not exceptionally complicated, and plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. For these reasons, plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel will be denied. The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice so require. If plaintiff later renews his request for counsel, he should provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances that he believes justify appointment of counsel in this case.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an extension of time and appointment of counsel, ECF No. 28, is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. ( 1 Ow —

Dated: _ April 8, 2021

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE