1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MALIK DAVIS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00896-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (ECF No. 24) 14 HERRERA, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Malik Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to

. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed on 20 October 21, 2025. (ECF No. 24.) This is Plaintiff’s fifth request for the appointment of counsel. 21 (See ECF Nos. 11, 13, 16, 19.) In support of his motion, Plaintiff asserts in part that he is unable 22 to afford counsel, that he has no legal training, and that he has limited education. He also asserts 23 that the issues in his case are complex, that he has requested a jury trial, hat he is a segregation 24 inmate with limited access to the law library and legal material, that he has limited ability to 25 investigate his claims, and he has been transferred to a different institution. (Id.) 26 As Plaintiff has been informed on multiple occasions, he does not have a constitutional 27 right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland,

(9th Cir. 1997), 28 rev’d in part on other grounds,

, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot 1 require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to

(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. 2 Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa,

(1989). However, in certain exceptional 3 circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 4 1915(e)(1). Rand,

. 5 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 6 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 7 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 8 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 9 complexity of the legal issues involved.”

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 10 The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion, but does not find the required exceptional 11 circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved, 12 would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed 13 almost daily by prisoners with limited education, no legal training, and limited law library access. 14 Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 15 Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff’s complaint has not been screened, and no 16 defendants have appeared in the action. The Court therefore cannot conclude that Plaintiff’s 17 claims are likely to succeed on the merits. Further, based on a review of the record in this case, 18 including his repeated motions to appoint counsel, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot 19 adequately articulate his claims. 20 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 24), is HEREBY 21 DENIED without prejudice. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23

24 Dated: October 23, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25

26 27 28