(PC) Hawkins v. Gomez

E.D. California

(PC) Hawkins v. Gomez

DecidedJanuary 4, 2024

Docket2:21-cv-02302

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Hawkins v. Gomez ((PC) Hawkins v. Gomez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Hawkins v. Gomez, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICKY HAWKINS, Case No. 2:21-cv-02302-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 O. GOMEZ, et al., ECF No. 62 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s seventh motion for the 19 appointment of counsel. See ECF Nos. 3, 10, 24, 36, 37, 48, & 62. 20 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand 21 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an 22 attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 23 298 (1989). The court can request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 25 counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. But without a means to compensate counsel, the court will 26 seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 27 circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits 28 [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 1 | legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2 The appointment of counsel is not warranted. The allegations in the complaint are not 3 | exceptionally complicated, plaintiff has submitted several motions and pleadings without the 4 | assistance of counsel, and he has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of 6 | counsel, ECF No. 62, is denied. 7 g IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ January 3, 2024 10 JEREMY D. PETERSON i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICKY HAWKINS, Case No. 2:21-cv-02302-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 O. GOMEZ, et al., ECF No. 62 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s seventh motion for the 19 appointment of counsel. See ECF Nos. 3, 10, 24, 36, 37, 48, & 62. 20 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand 21 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an 22 attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 23 298 (1989). The court can request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 25 counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. But without a means to compensate counsel, the court will 26 seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 27 circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits 28 [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 1 | legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2 The appointment of counsel is not warranted. The allegations in the complaint are not 3 | exceptionally complicated, plaintiff has submitted several motions and pleadings without the 4 | assistance of counsel, and he has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of 6 | counsel, ECF No. 62, is denied. 7 g IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ January 3, 2024 10 JEREMY D. PETERSON i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Hawkins v. Gomez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-hawkins-v-gomez-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack