Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00299/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00299-2/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

BRANDON KEEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CROSS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-00299-JDP (PC)

ORDER

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

COUNSEL AND DISREGARDING HIS 

DISCOVERY REQUEST

ECF No. 12

Plaintiff has filed a motion that requests both the appointment of counsel and the release 

of a video from CDCR. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary 

for discovery requests and that neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that 

party’s responses should be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response 

and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery 

requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue. I 

will therefore disregard plaintiff’s discovery request. 

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, 

Case 2:24-cv-00299-JDP Document 17 Filed 07/10/24 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

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).

I cannot find that the appointment of counsel is warranted here. 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 for counsel, ECF No. 12, is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s request for discovery is disregarded. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00299-JDP Document 17 Filed 07/10/24 Page 2 of 2