(PC) Lowery v. Brownnen et al

Filing 34

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 5/8/2024 DENYING 26 & 28 Motions for Clarification and DENYING 28 , 31 & 33 Motions to Appoint Counsel.(Kyono, V)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSHUA PHILLIP LOWERY,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
BROWNNEN, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2 :23-cv-01566-JDP (PC)
ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
CLARIFICATION AND FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
ECF Nos. 26, 28, 31, & 33

16
17
18
Plaintiff has filed two motions for clarification seeking the name of her court-appointed
19
attorney for an upcoming settlement conference. ECF Nos. 26 & 28. The court has no record of
20
appointing counsel for plaintiff, and the docket reflects that a settlement conference has been set.
21
Plaintiff has also moved for the appointment of counsel three times. ECF Nos. 28, 31, &
22
33. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v.
23
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an
24
attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296,
25
298 (1989). The court can request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C.
26
27
28

§ 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

1

seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such

2

circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits

3

[and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

4

legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

5

The appointment of counsel is not warranted. The allegations in the complaint are not

6

exceptionally complicated, and plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is likely to succeed on the

7

merits.

8
9
10

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motions for clarification, ECF Nos. 26 & 28, are denied.
2. Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 28, 31, & 33, are denied.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
Dated:

May 8, 2024

14

JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2