(PC) McCoy v. Kelso

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH RAYMOND MCCOY, ) Case No.: 1:12-cv-000983-AWI-SAB (PC) )

Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SEVENTH v. ) MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND GRANTING FOURTH MOTION FOR

STRONACH, et al., ) EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS )

Defendants. ) (ECF Nos. 287, 288) ) )

Plaintiff Joseph Raymond McCoy is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On July 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel, and fourth motion for extension of time to file objections to the pending Findings and Recommendations.

As Plaintiff is well aware, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on th merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of th legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. On February 5, 2021, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending judgment t entered in favor of Defendants. (ECF No. 280.) Accordingly, Plaintiff has not and cannot demonstrate that he is likely to proceed on the merits of the case, and based on a review of the record in this case, Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims to enable him to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel must be denied. However, on the basis of good cause, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file objections to the pending Findings and Recommendations.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied; and 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file objections.

! Tr IS SO ORDERED. Be *° || Dated: _ July 12, 2021 OF ALL,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE