(PC) Keen v. Cross

Opinion

BRANDON KEEN, Case No. 2:24-cv-00299-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COUNSEL AND DISREGARDING HIS CROSS, et al., DISCOVERY REQUEST Defendants. ECF No. 12 Plaintiff has filed a motion that requests both the appointment of counsel and the release of a video from CDCR. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary for discovery requests and that neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that party’s responses should be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue. I will therefore disregard plaintiff’s discovery request. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks 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 legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). I cannot find that the appointment of counsel is warranted here. 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: 1. Plaintiff’s motion for counsel, ECF No. 12, is denied. 2. Plaintiffs request for discovery is disregarded. ( ie — Dated: _ July 10, 2024 Q——— JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE