Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-mc-00046/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-mc-00046-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

1

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TIMMIE BRUCE TAYLOR, 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:16-mc-0046-BAM 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Doc. 16)

Defendant Timmie Taylor (“Defendant”) requests appointment of counsel in this 

garnishment action filed on September 8, 2016. (Doc. 16). Defendant seeks counsel on the 

grounds that he lacks resources to hire an attorney. (Doc. 16). 

Defendant does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this case. 

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

(9th Cir. 1981). Although this action arises out of a criminal judgment, it is nonetheless a civil 

garnishment action. It is “well-established that there is generally no constitutional right to 

counsel in civil cases.” United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1235 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 

in certain instances, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 

section 1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist. 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 a pro se party to articulate his 

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 

Case 1:16-mc-00046-BAM Document 19 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 2
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

(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 and quotation 

marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

In the present case, there are no exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 

counsel in this civil proceeding. Even if it is assumed that Defendant is not well versed in the law 

and that he has raised serious objections to garnishment, which, if proved, would entitle him to 

relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is regularly faced with similar cases. Thus, the 

Court does not find this to be a serious and exceptional case necessitating the appointment of 

counsel at this time. Also, based on a review of the record, the Court does not find that 

Defendant cannot adequately articulate his claim for exemptions. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. 

Indeed, this is Defendant’s second attempt to challenge the garnishment of his finances. In a 

separate action before this Court, Defendant, proceeding pro se, argued against the garnishment 

of his bank account. See United States v. Taylor, 2015 WL 128160 *3 (E.D. Ca. Jan 8, 2015); 

CR ECF No. 121-1. In the instant action, Defendant has filed several motions with the Court, 

including a request for a hearing that the Court granted over Plaintiff’s objections. (Doc. 17). 

The Court therefore does not find that Defendant cannot adequately articulate his claims.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel (Doc. 16) is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-mc-00046-BAM Document 19 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 2