Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01804/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01804-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roderick G. Cooley
Plaintiff
John Sutton
Defendant

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK G. COOLEY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN SUTTON,

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01804-JDP

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

ECF No. 3

Plaintiff Roderick G. Cooley is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil

rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion 

requesting appointed of counsel. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff submits that he is unable to afford counsel. 

Id.

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v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en 

banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and this court lacks the authority to require an attorney to 

represent plaintiff, see Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 

296, 298 (1989). This court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(1); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, we will 

seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 

Case 1:19-cv-01804-DAD-HBK Document 6 Filed 01/14/20 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).

We cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are 

present here. The allegations in the complaint are not unusually complicated and, based on a 

review of the record, plaintiff appears able to articulate his claims adequately. In addition, at this 

stage in the proceedings, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 24, is denied 

without prejudice. The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the 

interests of justice so require. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 205.

Case 1:19-cv-01804-DAD-HBK Document 6 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 2