Derrick Lamar Hairston v. Davis, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 30, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-01186
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 DERRICK LAMAR HAIRSTON, Case No. 1:23-cv-01186- -EPG (PC)

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 12 v. OF COUNSEL

13 DAVIS, et al., 14 Defendants. (ECF No. 11) 15 Plaintiff Derrick Lamar Hairston is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 22, 2025, 17 Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 11). 18 Plaintiff filed a previous motion for appointment of counsel on March 4, 2024, (ECF 19 No. 6) which the Court denied without prejudice on March 6, 2024. (ECF No. 7). 20 Plaintiff’s current motion requests an appointment of counsel for voluntarily 21 representation because “…well over 730 days passing without any defendant being served; 22 complaint has not took an official step foreward [sic] in these 2 years; no communication has 23 been established between court and plaintiff to provide any additional information.” (ECF No. 24 11, p. 1). 25 As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, he does not have a constitutional right to 26 appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), 27 withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require 28 1 || an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States 2 || District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain 3 |] exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant A || to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 5 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 6 || volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. A finding of exceptional 7 || circumstances requires an evaluation of both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the 8 || ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 9 issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 10 At this time, the Court declines to appoint counsel. While the Court appreciates that this 11 || case has been pending since August 10, 2023, the matter has only recently been assigned to the 12 || undersigned magistrate judge (See ECF No. 10) and will screen Plaintiff's complaint in due 13 || course. 14 Plaintiffs stated circumstances for requesting an appointment of counsel fail to meet 15 || the exceptional circumstances standard. Furthermore, at this stage in the case, the Court is 16 || unable to determine whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. 17 || Additionally, a cursory review of Plaintiff’s complaint indicates he is capable of articulating his 18 || positions and legal issues without the assistance of counsel. 19 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of 20 || counsel (ECF No. 1) is DENIED without prejudice.! 21 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 231! Dated: _ December 29, 2025 [see heey — 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 ' While Plaintiff is not precluded from renewing his request for appointment of counsel at a later stage 27 || of the proceedings, if Plaintiff renews his request without changed circumstances, the Court will deny 28 the motion without further explanation.