Carlos Villegas v. Cate et al

Filing 66

ORDER DENYING 64 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/19/2015. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CARLOS VILLEGAS,

Case No. 1:10-cv-01917-SKO (PC)

11

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

12

v.
(Doc. 64)

13

MATHEW CATE, et al.,

14

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

15
16

Plaintiff Carlos Villegas, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

17 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 14, 2010. This action is proceeding on
18 Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendant Neubarth for acting with deliberate indifference
19 to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States
20 Constitution.
21

On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff

22 does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action. Palmer v. Valdez,
23 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). The
24 Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it
25 will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist.

Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970; Wilborn v.

26 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this determination, the Court must
27 evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims
28 pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation

1 and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither consideration is dispositive and
2 they must be viewed together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted);
3 Wilborn 789 F.2d at 1331.
4

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

5 if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations
6 which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with
7 similar cases almost daily. Further, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a
8 determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record
9 in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Palmer,
10 560 F.3d at 970. Plaintiff should contact the appropriate prison employee, such as his counselor,
11 to discuss the available options regarding litigation assistance given his current housing status.
12

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

13 DENIED, without prejudice.
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 19, 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2