James v. Wilber et al

Filing 85

ORDER DENYING 84 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/14/2012. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 RICKY W. JAMES,

1:08-cv-00351-SKO (PC)

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff,

13 vs.
(Doc. 84)
14 J. WILBER, et al.,
15

Defendants.

16 ________________________________/
17

On August 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff

18 does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action. Palmer v.
19 Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir.
20 1981). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
21 1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970;
22 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this determination, the
23 Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to
24 articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560
25 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither
26 consideration is dispositive and they must be viewed together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation
27 and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn 789 F.2d at 1331.
28
-1-

1

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even

2 if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious
3 allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is
4 faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, based on the record, the Court does not find that
5 Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his Eighth Amendment claim, which is not particularly
6 complex.1
7

With respect to Plaintiff’s contentions regarding law library access, the second scheduling

8 order sets forth the deadlines applicable to Plaintiff, and upon presentation of that order to the
9 appropriate staff member, Plaintiff should be entitled to some sort of minimal accommodation
10 necessary to prepare for trial and to comply with the deadlines.2
11

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

12 DENIED.
13
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15 Dated:
i0d3h8
16

August 14, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

W hile Plaintiff would undoubtedly benefit from the appointment of counsel, that is not the criterion for
appointment.
2

Plaintiff is reminded that there is no constitutionally protected entitlement to litigate effectively once in
court, however. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996).

-2-