(PC) Davis v. Harris

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RONNELL DAVIS, Case No. 2:19-cv-01976-JAM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ECF No. 43 B. HARRIS, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion that request that he be appointed counsel. ECF No. 43.

20 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. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. 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 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

3 Having considered these factors, the court does find not that there are exceptional | circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that | plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 43, is denied without prejudice.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ April 8, 2022 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE