Ricks v. Levine, et al.

Filing 18

ORDER Denying 17 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 1/5/16. (Gonzalez, R)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SCOTT K. RICKS,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01150-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: MOTION
AT DOCKET 17

vs.
G. LEVINE, et al.,
Defendants.

At Docket 17 Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks, a State prisoner appearing pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
Generally, a state prisoner has no right to counsel in civil actions.1 “However, a
court may under exceptional circumstances appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). When determining whether exceptional circumstances
exist, a court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of
the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
involved. Neither of these considerations is dispositive, instead they must be viewed
together.”2

1

See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that there
is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for § 1983 claims).
2

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
ORDER RE: MOTION AT DOCKET 17
Ricks v. Levine, 1:15-cv-01150-RRB – 1

The availability of pro bono counsel to represent indigent prisoners is limited. As
noted in the pending motion, Plaintiff has made considerable effort to obtain counsel
without success. Furthermore, while this Court is not unmindful of the value of the
assistance of counsel, both to Plaintiff and the Court itself, this is not a case in which it is
necessary to appoint counsel at this point in the proceeding s.
Accordingly, the Motion to Appoint Counsel at Docket 17 is hereby DENIED without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2016.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER RE: MOTION AT DOCKET 17
Ricks v. Levine, 1:15-cv-01150-RRB – 2