Herman D. Shead v. Vang et al

Filing 54

ORDER DENYING Motions for the Appointment of Counsel 48 , 51 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/2/11: Motions are DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

HERMAN D. SHEAD,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00006-OWW-SKO PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
(Docs. 48 and 51)

12

C/O VANG,

13

Defendant.
/

14
15

On April 7, 2011, and April 21, 2011, Plaintiff Herman D. Shead, a state prisoner proceeding

16

pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action, filed motions seeking the appointment of

17

counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action.

18

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th

19

Cir. 1981). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

20

1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970;

21

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1981). In making this determination, the

22

Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to articulate

23

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer at 970 (citation and

24

quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither consideration is dispositive and they

25

must be viewed together. Palmer 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn

26

789 F.2d at 1331.

27

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

28

it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations
1

1

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with

2

similar cases almost daily. Further, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a

3

determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record

4

in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

5
6

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel are HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:
i0d3h8

May 2, 2011

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2