Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00776/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00776-2/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Vance Edward Johnson,

Plaintiff, Civ. No. S 04-0776 LKK PAN P

vs. Order on Request for Counsel

D. L. Runnels, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action. Plaintiff moved for

appointment of counsel May 2, 2005. 

In proceedings that do not threaten a litigant with loss of

physical liberty, there presumptively is no right to appointed

counsel. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18,

26-27 (1981). Section 1915(e)(1) of Title 28 confers discretion

upon the court to request counsel represent an indigent civil

litigant. Mallard v. District Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 16 Filed 06/03/05 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

2

In deciding whether to appoint counsel the court exercises

discretion 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). Ordinarily the

presumption of regularity in the state’s procedures for confining

prisoners suggests a lack of likely success and counsels against

appointment of counsel. See Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887

(7th Cir. 1981). As a general rule, the court will not appoint

counsel unless the applicant shows his claim has merit in fact

and law. Id. Even if the applicant overcomes this hurdle, the

court will not appoint counsel if the law is settled and the

material facts are within the plaintiff’s possession, viz., they

do not require investigation outside the prison walls. Id. at

887-88.

It is impossible to evaluate these factors by reference to

plaintiff’s May 2, 2005, pleading. By separate order, plaintiff

will receive an explanation of what the procedural rules require

of a complaint. 

Plaintiff’s May 2, 2005, request for the appointment of

counsel is denied without prejudice to its renewal later in these

proceedings.

So ordered.

Dated: June 2, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 16 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 2