(PC) Hawkins v. Gomez

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICKY HAWKINS, Case No. 2:21-cv-02302-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL O. GOMEZ, et al., ECF No. 62 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s seventh motion for the appointment of counsel. See ECF Nos. 3, 10, 24, 36, 37, 48, & 62.

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 can 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. But 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).

2 The appointment of counsel is not warranted. The allegations in the complaint are not | exceptionally complicated, plaintiff has submitted several motions and pleadings without the | assistance of counsel, and he has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits.

5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of | counsel, ECF No. 62, is denied. g IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ January 3, 2024 10 JEREMY D. PETERSON i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE