Schiro v. Clark et al

Filing 138

ORDER DENYING 118 Motion to Appoint Counsel. ; DENYING 119 Motion for leave to file. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 6/27/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
KENNETH SCHIRO,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STEPHEN CLARK, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
______________________________)
PRESENT:

3:10-CV-0203-RCJ (VPC)
MINUTES OF THE COURT
June 27, 2013

THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK:

LISA MANN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
This is a civil rights action brought by pro se prisoner plaintiff Kenneth Shiro. Plaintiff has
moved for appointment of counsel (#118), defendants opposed the motion (#120), and plaintiff
replied (#124).
A litigant in a civil rights action does not have a Sixth Amendment right to appointed
counsel. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). The United States Supreme
Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners
in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S.
296, 109 S.Ct. 1814 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the
voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d
1015 (9th Cir. 1990); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990). Without a reasonable
method of securing and compensating counsel, this court will seek volunteer counsel only in the
most serious and exceptional cases. A finding of such exceptional circumstances requires that the
court evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits and the pro se litigant's ability to articulate
his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Neither factor is controlling; both
must be viewed together in making the finding. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.
1991), citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). The court exercises
discretion in making this finding.

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if
it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations
which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The court is faced with
similar cases almost daily. The court will not enter an order directing the appointment of counsel in
this case. The plaintiff has demonstrated that he is able to litigate this case on his own. He has filed
a complaint and motions with the court. The plaintiff may have the assistance of law clerks at the
prison.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (#118)
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file interlocutory appeal
(#119) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk