Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00874/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00874-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
G. Herrera
Defendant
Miltonous Q. Kingdom
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

MILTONOUS Q. KINGDOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. HERRERA,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00874-JDP (PC)

ORDER

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL

ECF No. 20

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

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. ECF 

No. 20. 

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 

Case 2:23-cv-00874-JDP Document 21 Filed 01/05/24 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

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 plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, ECF 

No. 20, is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00874-JDP Document 21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 2