(PC) Mora v. Williams et al

Filing 51

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 9/14/2022 DENYING, without prejudice, plaintiff's 46 motion for appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RUBEN EDWARD MORA,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:20-cv-00746-KJM-JDP (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

v.
ECF No. 46
H. WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff has moved for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 46. Plaintiff does not have

19

a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520,

20

1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to represent plaintiff.

21

See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court can

22

request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request

23

an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. But

24

without a means to compensate counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional

25

circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate

26

both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his

27

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525

28

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
1

1
2

Having considered these factors, I cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances
requiring the appointment of counsel are present here.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel,

3
4

ECF No. 46, is denied without prejudice.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
Dated:
8
9

September 14, 2022
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2