Kevin Hagan v. Raul Recarey, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00562
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 KEVIN HAGAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00562-JLT-EPG (PC)

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

13 RAUL RECAREY, et al., 14 Defendant. (ECF No. 94) 15 Plaintiff Kevin Hagan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 16 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion for the 17 appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 94). 18 On December 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed his fourth motion for appointment of counsel. 19 (ECF No. 70). The Court denied the renewed motion on January 2, 2025. (ECF No. 71). 20 Plaintiff’s current motion does not set forth any changed circumstances or reasons to reconsider 21 that order. 22 As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, he does not have a constitutional right to 23 appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), 24 withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require 25 an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States 26 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain 27 28 1 || exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant 2 || to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 3 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 4 || volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. A finding of exceptional 5 || circumstances requires an evaluation of both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the 6 || ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 7 issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 8 Plaintiffs current motion argues that he is entitled to counsel, yet Plaintiff has not 9 || alleged any change in circumstances that warrant reconsideration of the prior four orders 10 || denying Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel. Again, the Court notes, there is no right 11 || to counsel in this case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 12 || (‘There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.”) (citation omitted). 13 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's renewed motion for 14 || appointment of counsel (ECF No. 94) is DENIED without prejudice. 15 16 IS SO ORDERED. "| Dated: _ October 2, 2025 [Jee hey 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28