Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01837/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01837-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA THOMAS NITKIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. RADU,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-01837-JDP (PC)

ORDER

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

COUNSEL 

ECF No. 27

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Pending is plaintiff’s motion for counsel, ECF No. 27, which defendant opposes, ECF No. 28. 

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel, see Rand v. Rowland, 

113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks 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).

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

Case 2:23-cv-01837-JDP Document 29 Filed 08/26/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

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

merits. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel, ECF No. 27, is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01837-JDP Document 29 Filed 08/26/24 Page 2 of 2