Johnson v. Sandoval et al

Filing 32

ORDER Denying Motion to Appoint Counsel 30 , signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 2/12/14. (Verduzco, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DONTAY JOHNSON,
Case No. 1:12-cv-00018-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL AT DOCKET 30

vs.
C. LOPEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

At Docket 30 Plaintiff Dontay Johnson, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, filed a
motion to appoint counsel. Generally, a 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 and instead must be
viewed together.”2
This case involves the use of excessive force in conducting a search. This is
primarily a fact-driven issue that does not involve intricate or complicated questions of law.

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 [Re: Motion at Docket 30]
Dontay v. Lopez, 1:12-cv-00018-RRB – 1

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, the Motion for the Appointment of Counsel at Docket 30 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2014.

S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER [Re: Motion at Docket 30]
Dontay v. Lopez, 1:12-cv-00018-RRB – 2