Martinez v. Allison et al

Filing 97

ORDER Denying 96 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 8/10/15. (Gonzalez, R)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RONALD F. MARTINEZ,
Case No. 1:11-cv-001749-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING
MOTION AT DOCKET 96

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

At Docket 96 Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez renewed his request for Appointment of
Counsel. As this Court explained in its earlier Order denying appointment of counsel,1 a
state prisoner has no right to counsel in civil actions.2 “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.”3

1

Docket 31.

2

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).
3

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 96
Martinez v. Allison 1:11-cv-01749-RRB – 1

As this Court previously noted, this case presents a relatively straightforward Eighth
Amendment excessive force claim. Neither the law nor the facts associated with excessive
force claims is unduly complex. The availability of pro bono counsel to represent indigent
prisoners is limited. Nothing in the renewed motion raises any matter not considered by the
Court in denying Martinez’s first motion. 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 96 is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2015.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 96
Martinez v. Allison 1:11-cv-01749-RRB – 2