Clay v. David Livingston et al

Filing 19

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas denying 18 Motion to Continue; denying 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

EUREKA DIVISION

6
7

WILLIE MORRIS CLAY,
No. C 13-3437 NJV (PR)
Plaintiff,

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO APPOINT COUNSEL
(Doc. 18.)

v.
DAVID LIVINGSTON, et. al.,
Defendants.
/

12
13

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under

14

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court recently ordered service on Defendants and there are no

15

pending motions. Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 18.) There is

16

no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452

17

U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and although district courts may "request" that counsel represent a

18

litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, as plaintiff is here, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1),

19

that does not give the courts the power to make "coercive appointments of counsel."

20

Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989).

21

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an

22

indigent litigant only in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires an

23

evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the

24

plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.

25

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff appears able to present his

26

claims adequately, and the issues are not complex. The court notes that Plaintiff alleges a

27

lack of access to the prison law library. Should such a lack of access impinge on Plaintiff’s

28

ability to meet a court-ordered deadline, Plaintiff may file an appropriate motion. Therefore,

1

the motion to appoint counsel will be denied.
CONCLUSION

2
3

The motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 18) is DENIED.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: February 26, 2014.
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

G:\PRO-SE\NJV\CR.13\Clay3437.counsel.wpd

28
2

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
EUREKA DIVISION

4
5
6

Plaintiff,

7
8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.

9

DAVID LIVINGSTON, et al.,

10

Defendants.

/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

No. 1:13-CV-3437 NJV

WILLIE MORRIS CLAY,

12
13
14

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on February 26, 2014, I served a true and correct copy
of the attached by placing said copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed
below, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail.

15
16
17
18
19

Willie Morris Clay , II
AR 3562
San Quentin State Prison
SP1B29
San Quentin, CA 94974

20
21

Dated: February 26, 2014

22
23
24

/s/ Linn Van Meter
Linn Van Meter
Administrative Law Clerk to the
Honorable Nandor J. Vadas

25
26
27
28
3