Greenblatt v. Patel, et al.

Filing 40

ORDER DENYING 37 Motion for Appointment of Another Attorney signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/24/2013. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

SHAWN PATRICK GREENBLATT,

11

Plaintiff,
v.

12

DR. I. PATEL, et al.,

13

Case No. 1:12-cv-00046-SKO PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF ANOTHER
ATTORNEY
(Doc. 37)

Defendants.

14

_____________________________________/

15
16

Plaintiff Shawn Patrick Greenblatt, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights

17

18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 10, 2012. On January 7, 2013, the Court
19 appointed an attorney to represent Plaintiff for the limited purpose of identifying the Doe
20 defendants named in his complaint and filing an amended complaint. Voluntary counsel Sarita
21 Ordonez completed her limited appointment obligation on September 6, 2013, and on September
1
22 24, 2013, the Court relieved her of the appointment.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking the appointment of another attorney

23

24 to represent him for further proceedings, filed on August 23, 2013.
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action.

25

26 Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353
27 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
28

1

Plaintiff’s amended complaint will be screened in due course. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

1 § 1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970;
2 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this determination, the
3 Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to articulate
4 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970
5 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither consideration is
6 dispositive and they must be viewed together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation
7 marks omitted); Wilborn 789 F.2d at 1331.
8

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

9 if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations
10 which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with
11 similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a
12 determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record
13 in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Palmer,
14 560 F.3d at 970.
15

While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se status and

16 his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel.
17 See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“Most actions require development of further facts during
18 litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary
19 to support the case.”) The test is whether exceptional circumstances exist and here, they do not.
20

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of another attorney to represent him

21 for further proceedings is HEREBY DENIED.
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 24, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3