Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01566/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01566-5/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

JOSHUA PHILLIP LOWERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

BROWNNEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2 :23-cv-01566-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR 

CLARIFICATION AND FOR THE 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ECF Nos. 26, 28, 31, & 33

Plaintiff has filed two motions for clarification seeking the name of her court-appointed 

attorney for an upcoming settlement conference. ECF Nos. 26 & 28. The court has no record of 

appointing counsel for plaintiff, and the docket reflects that a settlement conference has been set. 

Plaintiff has also moved for the appointment of counsel three times. ECF Nos. 28, 31, & 

33. 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 

Case 2:23-cv-01566-JDP Document 34 Filed 05/09/24 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

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 

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

merits. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for clarification, ECF Nos. 26 & 28, are denied.

2. Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 28, 31, & 33, are denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01566-JDP Document 34 Filed 05/09/24 Page 2 of 2