Stafford v. State of California et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Request for "Rules of Court"; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of Counsel 10 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/14/14. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MICHAEL CHASE STAFFORD,
Plaintiff,

11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST FOR "RULES OF COURT"

v.

12
13

Case No. 1:13-cv-00348-LJO-SKO

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

14
Defendants.

(Doc. 10)

15
_____________________________________/
16
17
18

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Michael Chase Stafford ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this

19 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 11, 2013. (Doc. 1.) On October 23,
20 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the "Rules of the Court" and appointment of counsel.
21 (Doc. 10.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's requests are DENIED.
22
23

II.

DISCUSSION

Regarding Plaintiff's request for the "Rules of the Court," the Court does not provide

24 copies of the Local Rules to individual litigants. However, if Plaintiff's prison law library does not
25 have the latest version of the Local Rules for the United States District Court, Eastern District of
26 California, the law librarian may contact the Clerk of the Court to request a copy.
27
28 part:

Regarding Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel, Plaintiff states in pertinent

1
2

Also am I allowed or is there a certain kind of attorney I can look into to be
retained to help me in my case? If so[,] can you refer me to a[n] attorney to seek to
help me with my current case[?] Please inform me of this matter.

3 (Doc. 10, p. 1.)
4

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking legal advice or a legal referral from the court, "the

5 court cannot provide litigants with legal advice or act as an advocate for any litigant." Rao v.
6 AmerisourceBergen Corp., No. CIV S-08-1527 DAD PS, 2011 WL 1464378, at *1 (E.D. Cal.
7 Apr. 15, 2011). As such, the Court cannot act as a referral service.
8

To the extent that Plaintiff is requesting that the Court appoint counsel, Plaintiff does not

9 have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action.

Palmer v. Valdez,

10 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). The
11 Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it
12 will do so only under exceptional circumstances. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970; Wilborn v. Escalderon,
13 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this determination, the Court must evaluate the
14 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light
15 of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation
16 marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither consideration is dispositive and they must be
17 viewed together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn 789
18 F.2d at 1331.
19

Here, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even assuming

20 Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would
21 entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with similar cases almost
22 daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that
23 Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the
24 Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970.
25

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

26 his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel.
27 See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 ("Most actions require development of further facts during
28
2

1 litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary
2 to support the case.") The test is whether exceptional circumstances exist and here, they do not.
3

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

4

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

Plaintiff's request for a copy of the "Rules of Court" is DENIED; and

6

2.

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 14, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3