Turner v. United States Department of the Treasury

Filing 10

ORDER DENYING 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/26/2015. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14

BRUCE ERVIN TURNER,

15

Plaintiff,

16

Case No. 1:15-cv-00007-LJO-SKO
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.

17
18
19
20

(Doc. 9)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

21
22

I.

INTRODUCTION

23
24

Plaintiff Bruce Ervin Turner (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

25 this action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") on January 1, 2015. (Doc. 1.) On
26 May 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel pursuant to
27 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

(Docs. 9.)

28 appointment of counsel is DENIED.

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion for

1
2

II.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that counsel should be appointed because he is unable to afford an

3 attorney and his complaint sufficiently sets forth a claim. (Doc. 9, 1-2.)
4

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

5 Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353
6 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Turner v. Rogers, 131 S.Ct. 2516-17 (2011) (constitutional right to
7 appointment of counsel, sometimes referred to as a “Civil Gideon,” is limited to criminal cases
8 and criminal contempt proceedings). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel
9 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist.
10 Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making
11 this determination, the Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability
12 of Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.
13 Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.
14 Neither consideration is dispositive and they must be viewed together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970
15 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn 789 F.2d at 1331.
16

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

17 assuming Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has set forth allegations which, if
18 proven, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with similar
19 cases almost daily.

Further, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a

20 determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record
21 in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Palmer,
22 560 F.3d at 970.
23

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

24 test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d
25 at 1331 (“Most actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant
26 will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) The test
27 is whether exceptional circumstances exist and here, they do not; the record in this case
28 demonstrates that Plaintiff is capable of articulating his claims.
2

1
2

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for

3 appointment of counsel is DENIED.
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 26, 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3