Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00492/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00492-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TION ALONZO GRIMMETT HILL, Sr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. YOUSSEF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00492-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL

ECF Nos. 22 & 23

Plaintiff has filed a motion to modify the September 7, 2023 scheduling order, ECF 

No. 22, and a motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 23. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion 

to modify the scheduling order is granted. 

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 

Case 2:23-cv-00492-DJC-JDP Document 24 Filed 01/09/24 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

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 

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

merits. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order, ECF No. 22, is granted.

2. All requests for discovery shall be filed on or before February 6, 2024. All other 

deadlines remain unchanged. 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 23, is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00492-DJC-JDP Document 24 Filed 01/09/24 Page 2 of 2