(PS) Jones v. Velocity Technology Solutions
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 GARRISON JONES, No. 2:19-cv-02374-KJM-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL
VELOCITY TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, ECF No. 45 14 Defendant.
16 Plaintiff moves for the appointment of counsel in this civil action brought under the 17 Family and Medical Leave Act. ECF No. 45. 18 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand 19 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an 20 attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 21 Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to 23 afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the 24 court will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining…