Herrera v. Nguyen et al

Filing 15

ORDER Denying 12 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/21/2013. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ROBERTO HERRERA,

10

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01565-SKO PC

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
(Doc. 12)

12

HUU NGUYEN, et al.,

13

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Roberto Herrera, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

16

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 24, 2012. On December 20, 2012,

17

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

///
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7
8

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
DENIED, without prejudice.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:
i0d3h8

March 21, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2