(PC)Hagan v. Recarey et al

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KEVIN HAGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAUL RECAREY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:22-cv-00562-JLT-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
RENEWED MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 112)
Plaintiff Kevin Hagan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s sixth renewed motion for the
appointment of pro bono counsel filed on January 8, 2025. (ECF No. 112).
On August 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed his fifth motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF
No. 94). The Court denied the renewed motion on October 2, 2025. (ECF No. 102). Plaintiff’s
current motion does not set forth any changed circumstances or reasons to reconsider that
order.
As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, he does not have a constitutional right to
appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997),
withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require
an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant
to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. A finding of exceptional
circumstances requires an evaluation of both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the
ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal
issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff’s current motion argues that he is entitled to counsel, yet Plaintiff has not
alleged any change in circumstances that warrant reconsideration of the prior five orders
denying Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel. Again, the Court notes, there is no right
to counsel in this case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525
(“There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.”) (citation omitted).
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s renewed motion for
appointment of counsel (ECF No. 112) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2026 /s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE