From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mills v. Clarke

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 24, 2020
Case No. 1:20-cv-00498-JDP (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2020)

Opinion

Case No. 1:20-cv-00498-JDP

04-24-2020

DARRYL RAY MILLS, Plaintiff, v. KEN CLARKE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ECF No. 9

Plaintiff Darryl Ray Mills is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 20, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion requesting appointed of counsel. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff submits that his case is complex, and that he lacks legal education and ready access to legal materials. Id.

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a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to represent plaintiff, see Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). This court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, 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). The court cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are present here. At this stage in the proceedings, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, and the issues covered in his initial complaint—while numerous—do not appear unusually complex.

Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 9, is denied without prejudice. The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice so require. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 24, 2020

/s/_________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE No. 205.


Summaries of

Mills v. Clarke

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 24, 2020
Case No. 1:20-cv-00498-JDP (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2020)
Case details for

Mills v. Clarke

Case Details

Full title:DARRYL RAY MILLS, Plaintiff, v. KEN CLARKE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 24, 2020

Citations

Case No. 1:20-cv-00498-JDP (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2020)