Baker v. Yates
Filing
46
ORDER Denying Motions (ECF No. 44 , 45 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 2/15/2013. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
HARVEY CURTIS BAKER,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:12-cv-00126-LJO-SAB
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
(ECF NO. 44, 45)
JAMES A. YATES,
15
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff Harvey Curtis Baker (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in this
18
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant James A. Yates (“Defendant”).
19
Currently before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff. On February 13, 2013, Plaintiff
20
filed a motion requesting appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 44.) The same day, Plaintiff filed a
21
motion requesting that all future hearings be conducted by “court-call.” (ECF No. 45.)
22
I.
23
DISCUSSION
24
A.
Motion For Appointment Of Counsel
25
Plaintiff’s first motion requests appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff does not have a
26
constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965,
27
970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court may
28
request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it will do so
1
1
only if exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789
2
F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this determination, the Court must evaluate the
3
likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in
4
light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and
5
quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither consideration is dispositive and
6
they must be viewed together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted);
7
Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.
8
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances exist at
9
this time. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made
10
serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The
11
Court is faced with similar cases almost daily.
12
appointment of counsel will be denied.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for the
Motion For “Court Call” Hearings
13
B.
14
Plaintiff’s second motion requests that the Court order that all future hearings be
15
conducted via “court-call.” The Court interprets this to mean that Plaintiff requests all future
16
hearings to be conducted via telephonic appearance.
17
It is this Court’s practice to adjudicate all motions in cases involving pro se prisoner
18
plaintiffs without hearings, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.1 See Local Rule 230(l). In an
19
appropriate case, the Court will conduct hearings and allow Plaintiff to appear by telephone.
20
However, this determination will be made on a case-by-case basis and the Court will not issue an
21
advance order setting telephonic hearings for all future proceedings. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
22
motion will be denied.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
27
28
1
For example, the Court issued its Findings and Recommendations on Defendant’s motion to
dismiss without a hearing. Neither side presented oral argument and the Court only considered
the papers filed by the parties.
2
1
II.
2
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
3
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s February 13, 2013
4
motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 44) and Plaintiff’s February 13, 2013 motion for
5
“court call” hearings (ECF No. 45) are DENIED.
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated:
10
February 15, 2013
_
DEAC_Signature-END:
11
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
i1eed4
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?