(PC) Mills v. Clarke

Opinion

DARRYL RAY MILLS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00498-JDP

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL KEN CLARKE, et al., ECF No. 15 Defendants.

Plaintiff Darryl Ray Mills is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 24, 2020, the court denied plaintiff’s first motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 11. On June 15, 2020, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of that result. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff argues that his case is complex, that he lacks the ability to litigate it fully, and that his claim is potentially meritorious. Id. Because these arguments are similar to those presented in plaintiff’s original motion, ECF No. 9, we deny it for the same reasons. Again, plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court lacks the authority to require an 4: OU VOTO RAT MMU I Nhe PAY ee

attorney to represent plaintiff, see Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). 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). Once more, the court cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are present here. At this stage in the proceedings, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, and the issues covered in his complaint do not appear unusually complex. The motion for reconsideration is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. ° : \ prssanp Rae — Dated: _ June 18, 2020 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE No. 205.