# (PC) Brown v. Wong

> District Court, E.D. California · July 22, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10028910

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** July 22, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10028910

## Opinion text

1
2
3

4
5

6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 CHARLES BROWN, Case No. 2:20-cv-01673-JAM-JDP (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
TO APPOINT COUNSEL
13 v.
ECF Nos. 48, 50
14 S.H. WONG,

15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought
18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed two identical motions asking that he be appointed counsel.
19 ECF Nos. 48, 50.
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. District Court for the Southern District of
23 Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See
24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to
25 afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without means of compensating counsel, the
26 court will 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
1 | [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the
2 | legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
3 The court cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of
4 | counsel are present here. The allegations in the complaint are not exceptionally complicated.
5 | Further, plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. For these
6 || reasons, plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel, ECF Nos. 48 & 50, are denied without prejudice.
7 The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice
8 || so require. If plaintiff later renews his request for counsel, he should provide a detailed
9 | explanation of the circumstances that he believes justify appointment of counsel in this case.
10
Wl IT IS SO ORDERED.
12 ( ie —
Dated: _ July 21, 2021
13 JEREMY D. PETERSON
4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10028910. Public record. Not legal advice.