Bell v. Heberling et al

Filing 19

ORDER Denying 18 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 3/28/13. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HORACE BELL,

12
13
14

1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
S. HEBERLING, et al.,

(ECF No. 18)
15

Defendants.

16

________________________________/

17

Plaintiff Horace Bell (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court. On July 27, 2012, Defendants removed the

19

action to federal court. (ECF No. 2.) On March 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the

20

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 18.) In the motion seeking the appointment of counsel,

21

Plaintiff states that “imminent danger” exists and he requires counsel assist with prosecution of

22

his case and for a protective order. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks a protective order, Plaintiff

23

must file a separate motion requesting such action.

24

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action.

25

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353

26

(9th Cir. 1981). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

27

§ 1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970;

28

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this determination, the
-1-

1

Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to

2

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer 560

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

at this time. Plaintiff is an experienced litigant in this Court. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff

8

is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would

9

entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with similar cases almost

10

daily. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED,

11

without prejudice.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:
427h8i

March 28, 2013
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-