(PC) Keen v. Cross

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON KEEN, Case No. 2:24-cv-00299-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COUNSEL AND DISREGARDING HIS 14 CROSS, et al., DISCOVERY REQUEST 15 Defendants. ECF No. 12 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion that requests both the appointment of counsel and the release 18 of a video from CDCR. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary 19 for discovery requests and that neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that 20 party’s responses should be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response 21 and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery 22 requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue. I 23 will therefore disregard plaintiff’s discovery request. 24 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel, see Rand v. Rowland, 25 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks authority to require an attorney to 26 represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 27 (1989). The court can request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) 28 (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 1 113 F.3d at 1525. But without a means to compensate counsel, the court will seek volunteer 2 | counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, 3 | “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of 4 | the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 5 involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 6 I cannot find that the appointment of counsel is warranted here. The allegations in the 7 | complaint are not exceptionally complicated and plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to 8 || succeed on the merits. 9 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiff’s motion for counsel, ECF No. 12, is denied. 11 2. Plaintiffs request for discovery is disregarded. 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ( ie — Dated: _ July 10, 2024 Q——— 15 JEREMY D. PETERSON 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28