Williams v. Horel et al

Filing 41

ORDER DENYING 40 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 2, 2011. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/2/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ROBERT A. HOREL, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
_______________________________ )
MICHAEL PAUL WILLIAMS,

No. C 09-5314 MMC (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Docket No. 40)

On November 9, 2009, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay

16

State Prison (“PBSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under

17

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 19, 2011, the Court denied two dispositive motions filed by

18

defendants and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Vadas for settlement proceedings. A

19

settlement conference is set for November 4, 2011. Now before the Court is plaintiff’s

20

motion for appointment of counsel to represent him at the settlement conference and in other

21

future proceedings in this action.

22

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case such as this. See Lassiter v.

23

Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Rather, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a

24

district court has the power to “request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in

25

forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The decision to request counsel to represent an

26

indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted

27

only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir.

28

1984). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of (1) the likelihood

1

of the plaintiff’s success on the merits, and (2) the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims

2

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections

3

Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To date, plaintiff has been able to

4

present his claims in an adequate manner and there are no exceptional circumstances

5

warranting appointment of counsel at this time. Should the circumstances of the case

6

materially change, the Court may reconsider plaintiff’s request sua sponte. Accordingly,

7

plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.
This order terminates Docket No. 40.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

DATED: November 2, 2011

11
12

_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

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