Olivier v. Klee

Filing 56

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 54 Motion ; denying 55 Motion to Appoint Counsel (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2013)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5
6 MAURICE P. OLIVIER,

Plaintiff,

7
8

Case No: C 11-3663 SBA (pr)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

vs.
Docket 54, 55

9 T. KLEE,
10

Defendants.

11
12

On May 1, 2012, Plaintiff, a California prisoner who is proceeding pro se in this

13

civil rights action, filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 55. However, the

14

motion was never docketed in ECF. On February 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion

15

requesting docket number, in which he indicates that the aforementioned motion for

16

appointment of counsel has not been docketed. Dkt. 54. Upon receiving such notification,

17

the Clerk entered the motion for appointment of counsel into the docket. Thus, the Court

18

now addresses the merits of the motion for appointment of counsel.

19

As a general matter, a civil litigant has no constitutional right to counsel. Lassiter v.

20

Dept. of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1),

21

district courts have the discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons, but only in

22

“exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

23

“A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of

24

success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate her claims pro se in light of

25

the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both

26

must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon,

27

789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). Here, it is premature to evaluate the likelihood of

28

success on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. Nonetheless, Plaintiff has been able to present

1

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

2

warranting appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

4

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for docket number (Dkt. 54) is GRANTED.

5

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 55) is DENIED.

6

3.

This Order terminates Docket 54 and 55.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: 2/14/13

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

MAURICE P. OLIVER,

6

Plaintiff,

7
v.
8
9
10

T.KLEE et al,
Defendant.
/

11
12

Case Number: CV11-03663 SBA

13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.

16
17
18

That on February 14, 2013, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.

19
20
21
22
23

Maurice P. Olivier F83603
Pleasant Valley State Prison
P.O. Box 8500
Coalinga, CA 93210

24
25
26

Dated: February 14, 2013
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Lisa Clark, Deputy Clerk

27
28
-3-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.11\11-3663 - Olivier - Order Den Mot for App Cnsl.docx

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-