1 2 3 4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 KEVIN LONG, 1:23-cv-01073-JLT-GSA-PC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 vs. (ECF No. 8.) 14 CRABTREE,

15 Defendant.

16

17 18 19 On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff 20 does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113

, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff 22 pursuant to

(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern 23 District of Iowa,

(1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the 24 Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 25 F.3d at 1525. 26 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 27 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 28 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 1 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 2 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 3 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 4 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 5 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 6 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 7 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 8 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. The 9 court finds it unlikely that plaintiff will succeed on the merits of this case. Plaintiff’s complaint 10 awaits the court’s screening required under

. Thus, to date the court has not 11 found any cognizable claims in plaintiff’s complaint for which to initiate service of process, 12 and no other parties have yet appeared. The legal issue in this case, whether Plaintiff’s rights to 13 campaign for President while in jail have been violated, is not complex. Moreover, based on a 14 review of the record in this case, the court finds that plaintiff can adequately articulate his 15 claims. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the 16 motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 17 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel 18 is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20

21 Dated: August 24, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22

23 24 25 26 27 28