Howard

MEMORANDUM *

Clayton L. Howard appeals the judgment entered in favor of various officers at the Snake River Correctional Institution Disciplinary Segregation Unit where he was incarcerated at the time the incidents about which he complains occurred. We affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.

I

Howard first asserts that he was unable to prosecute this exceptional case effectively because the district court failed to secure volunteer counsel. However, the district court instructed the clerk of court to try to find counsel. No one volunteered. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1) by proceeding months later with Howard pro se. See United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir.1986) (noting that § 1915(e)(1) does not authorize appointment of counsel to involuntary service).

II

Howard also claims that he failed to receive fair notice of the requirements of summary judgment, but the district court gave a Rand notice that was fully compliant. Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc). The greater difficulty is that thereafter, the district court determined that “an evidentiary hearing would enable…