Martinez v. Allison et al

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING 30 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 8/27/14. (Martin-Gill, S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RONALD F. MARTINEZ,
Case No. 1:11-cv-001749-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING
MOTION AT DOCKET 30

vs.
KATHLEEN ALLISON, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.

At Docket 30 Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez filed a Request for Appointment of
Counsel. Generally, a state prisoner has no right to counsel in civil actions.1 “However, a
court may, under exceptional circumstances, appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). When determining whether exceptional circumstances
exist, a court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of
the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
involved. Neither of these considerations is dispositive, instead they must be viewed
together.”2
This case presents a relatively straightforward Eighth Amendment excessive force
claim. Neither the law nor the facts associated with excessive force claims are unduly
1

See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that
there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for § 1983 claims).
2

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 30
Martinez v. Allison 1:11-cv-01749-RRB – 1

complex. The availability of pro bono counsel to represent indigent prisoners is limited.
While this Court is not unmindful of the value of the assistance of counsel, both to Plaintiff
and the Court itself, this is not a case in which it is necessary to appoint counsel.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel at Docket 30 is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of August, 2014.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 30
Martinez v. Allison 1:11-cv-01749-RRB – 2