Ahkeem Williams v. Pedriero et al

Filing 26

ORDER ADDRESSING Notice re Records Subpoena and Denying 24 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/1/2013. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

AHKEEM WILLIAMS,

9
10
11

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00606-SKO PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADDRESSING NOTICE RE
RECORDS SUBPOENA AND DENYING
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
KIM PEDRIERO, et al.,

12

(Doc. 24)

Defendants.
/

13
14

Plaintiff Akheem Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

15

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 17, 2012. This action is proceeding

16

against Defendants Garcia, Valdiz, Cortez, Silva, Castro, Day, Stephens, Collier, Torres, Delia, and

17

Tordson for use of excessive physical force, in violation of the United States Constitution.

18

On April 22, 2013, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court regarding receipt of a records subpoena

19

from Defendants and requesting the appointment of counsel. The letter was filed and shall be

20

construed as a motion.

21

The Court cannot give Plaintiff legal advice regarding the prosecution of his case. See Pliler

22

v. Ford, 5452 U.S. 225, 231, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 2446 (2004) (Courts “have no obligation to act as

23

counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.”) However, Plaintiff is reminded that on March 12, 2013,

24

the Court issued an order opening the discovery phase of this litigation and setting pretrial deadlines.

25

Therefore, both Plaintiff and Defendants are entitled to engage in discovery at this time, and Plaintiff

26

is required to provide discovery if served with a discovery request that complies with the Federal

27

Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The failure to do so may result in sanctions. Fed.

28

R. Civ. P. 37.
1

1

With respect to counsel, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of

2

counsel in this action. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman,

3

654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

4

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer,

5

560 F.3d at 970; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this

6

determination, the Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of

7

Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.

8

Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither

9

consideration is dispositive and they must be viewed together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and

10

quotation marks omitted); Wilborn 789 F.2d at 1331.

11

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

12

it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations

13

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with

14

similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a

15

determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record

16

in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

17
18

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s notice regarding the records subpoena is deemed addressed, and
Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:
i0d3h8

May 1, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2