(PC) Broadnax v. State Controller's Office (CA)

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA COTTRELL L. BROADNAX, No. 1:25-cv-00285-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE STATE CONTROLLER’S OFFICE, et al., (ECF No. 24) 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983.

19 On May 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed a request wherein he seeks the appointment of counsel.

20 (ECF No. 24.)

21 Plaintiff 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.

27 /// 1 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 | onthe merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

6 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. A | cursory review of Plaintiff's complaint demonstrates that, although somewhat vague, he has || adequately presented his challenge to the withdrawal of funds from his trust account to pay filing | fee for cases filed in this Court, and the claim does not appear legally complex. (ECF No. 5.) In | addition, because the Court has yet to screen Plaintiff's complaint, it cannot determine whether he || is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Accordingly, Plaintiffs the motion for || appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice.

14 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le | Dated: _ May 30, 2025 ; STANLEY A. BOONE 16 United States Magistrate Judge