Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00599/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00599-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIPE GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. BITER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 79)

Plaintiff Felipe Garcia, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 25, 2013. On January 22, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel, which is denied. 

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action, 

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 

(9th Cir. 1981), and while the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), it will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist, Palmer, 560 F.3d at 

970; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this determination, 

the Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to 

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 

F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither 

consideration is dispositive and they must be viewed together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation 

Case 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO Document 83 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn 789 F.2d at 1331. 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. Further, at this 

stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed 

on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that 

Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

the appointment of counsel, filed on January 22, 2016, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO Document 83 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 2