Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01053-6/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

JARVON D. GREEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. KERSH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-01053-TLN-JDP (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

ECF No. 27

Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion asking that he be appointed counsel. ECF No. 27.

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 

Case 2:22-cv-01053-TLN-JDP Document 31 Filed 04/05/23 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

[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 hearing impaired and would benefit 

from help with trial procedures. ECF No. 27 at 1. I 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. For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 27, is 

denied without prejudice. 

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

ECF No. 27, is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01053-TLN-JDP Document 31 Filed 04/05/23 Page 2 of 2