Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01566/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01566-6/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

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 

THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ECF No. 37

Plaintiff has moved for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 37. 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 [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-01566-JDP Document 38 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

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

merits. Additionally, plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel for assistance with a settlement 

conference, but the settlement conference has already happened. See ECF No. 36. 

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

counsel, ECF No. 37, is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01566-JDP Document 38 Filed 07/10/24 Page 2 of 2