Agundez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CORNELL DAVIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00640-DAD-JLT (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v. (Doc. 36) A. AGUNDEZ, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff has filed a document titled, “Motion for Court Order Call’s [sic] . . . Access to Legal Advice.” (Doc. 36.) Upon review of the document, the Court construes it as a motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent a party under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), see Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer…