From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hawkins v. Gomez

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 21, 2022
2:21-cv-02302-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-02302-JDP (PC)

11-21-2022

RICKY HAWKINS, Plaintiff, v. O. GOMEZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

ECF NO. 24

JEREMY D. PETERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a second motion requesting that he be appointed counsel. ECF No. 24.

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court can request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 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 seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Plaintiff asks that counsel be appointed because he is “unable to communicate with the court or litigate.” ECF No. 24 at 1. The court cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are present here. The allegations in the complaint are not exceptionally complicated, and plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. Further, plaintiff has properly filed several motions with the court. For these reasons, plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 24, is denied without prejudice.

The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice so require. If plaintiff later renews his request for counsel, he should provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances that he believes justify appointment of counsel in this case.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 24, is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hawkins v. Gomez

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 21, 2022
2:21-cv-02302-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2022)
Case details for

Hawkins v. Gomez

Case Details

Full title:RICKY HAWKINS, Plaintiff, v. O. GOMEZ, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 21, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-02302-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2022)