1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 JOSE ARTEAGA, Case No. 1:22-cv-01292-KES-EPG (PC)

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 12 v. OF COUNSEL

13 J. GARCIA, et al., 14 Defendants. (ECF No. 49) 15 Plaintiff Jose Arteaga is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed 16 pursuant to

. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion for the 17 appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 49). 18 On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 18). 19 The Court denied the motion on October 10, 2024. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff’s current motion 20 does not set forth any changed circumstances or reasons to reconsider that order. 21 As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, he does not have a constitutional right to 22 appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland,

(9th Cir. 1997), 23 withdrawn in part on other grounds,

(9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require 24 an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to

(e)(1). Mallard v. United States 25 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,

(1989). However, in certain 26 exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant 27 to section 1915(e)(1). Rand,

. 28 1 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 2 || volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. A finding of exceptional 3 || circumstances requires an evaluation of both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the 4 || ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 5 || issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon,

(9th Cir. 1986). 6 Plaintiff's current motion argues that he has a “low education,” and English is his 7 || second language. (ECF No. 49, p.1). Additionally, Plaintiff argues court-appointed counsel 8 || would assist him in litigating and navigating the case as it proceeds past alternative dispute 9 || resolution. U/d., p.2). These claims are insufficient to give rise to the certain exceptional 10 || circumstances required for the Court to request voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 11 |} section 1915(e)(1). Again, the Court notes, there is no right to counsel in this case brought 12 || pursuant to

. See Rand,

(“There is no constitutional right to 13 || appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.”) (citation omitted). 14 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's renewed motion for 15 || appointment of counsel (ECF No. 49) is DENIED without prejudice. 16 17 IS SO ORDERED. "ll Dated: _ October 7, 2025 [Jee ey — 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28