Tierney v. Torikawa et al

Filing 7

ORDER DENYING 4 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by District JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on January 30, 2012. (bbb, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY,
#A0201434,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LOIS TORIKAWA, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )

CIV. NO. 12-00056 LEK-RLP
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel to assist him in
this prisoner civil rights action.

Plaintiff claims that

Defendants failed to protect him from assault by another inmate.
In proceedings that do not threaten a litigant with
loss of physical liberty, there is no presumptive right to
appointed counsel.
18, 26-27 (1981).

Lassiter v. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S.
The court has discretion whether to seek

counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant.

28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1); Mallard v. District Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).
That discretion is governed by a number of factors, including the
likelihood of success on the merits and the applicant’s ability
to present his claims in light of their complexity.

Weygandt v.

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); see also, LaMere v.
Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff can read, write, and adequately express his
claims.

Moreover, Plaintiff has filed six actions, including

this one, in this court within the past year,1 and nearly forty
actions in the federal district and appellate courts since 1991.2
Clearly, Plaintiff is able to access the courts and navigate his
proceedings pro se.

The appointment of counsel is not required

in the interests of justice.

At this stage of these proceeding,

before the Complaint has been screened or a responsive pleading
has been ordered and filed, the court is unable to determine
Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits of his claims.
Plaintiff fails to present exceptional circumstances justifying
the appointment of counsel.

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment

of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

Honolulu, Hawaii, January 30, 2012.

/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

Tierney v. Torikawa, et al., 1:12-cv-00056 LEK-RLP; psas\apptcoun\dmp\2012\
Tierney 12-56 lek (dny 1983)

1

See 1:11-cv-00082 HG; 1:11-cv-00246 LEK; 1:11-cv-00369
JMS; 1:11-cv-00681 DAE; 1:11-cv-00800 DAE.
2

See http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov, (“PACER”).
2