Williams v. Anderson

Filing 73

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Appointment Of Counsel And/Or Assistance From The Court Regarding Falsification Of Swon Declarations (ECF No. 72 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/2/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SYLESTER WILLIAMS,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
SERGEANT R. ANDERSON, et al.,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01250-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND/OR
ASSISTANCE FROM THE COURT REGARDING
FALSIFICATION OF SWON DECLARATIONS
[ECF No. 72]

Plaintiff Sylester Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed August
22, 2014.
On July 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, and, on July 24, 2014,
Defendant Anderson filed a motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this determination, the Court must

28

evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro
1

1

se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer at 970 (citation and quotation marks

2

omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither consideration is dispositive and they must be viewed

3

together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.
Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to represent him apparently based on his claim

4
5

that Defendants have submitted false sworn declarations and he is unable to gain access to certain

6

materials. However, Plaintiff primarily focuses on the factual and/or legal allegations set forth in

7

Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff’s arguments to not amount to exceptional circumstances, which requires an evaluation

8
9

of the likelihood of Plaintiff’s success on the merits and the ability to articulate his claims in light of

10

the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d

11

1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement claim against Defendant Anderson

12

is not complex, and based upon the documents he has filed with the Court, he appears to be more than

13

capable of articulating and presenting his arguments. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment

14

of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:

18

September 2, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2