Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00095/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00095-30/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

KELVIN X. SINGLETON, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

 v. )

 )

HEDGEPATH, et al., )

 )

)

 Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:08-cv-00095-AWI-GSA-PC 

 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

COURT ORDER OR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Doc. 91.)

 

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a request for a court order directing the prison to allow him access

to the law library and to provide him with writing materials, to enable him to prepare legal documents. 

(Doc. 91.) In the alternative, Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel.

With respect to Plaintiff's request for a court order directed to the prison, the Court recognizes

that prison administrators "should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution

of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and

to maintain institutional security." Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (quoting Bell v.

Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970). Accordingly, the Court shall defer to the prison's policies and

practices in granting access to the law library and providing writing materials to inmates. 

With respect to Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff does not have a

constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir.

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 178 Filed 05/06/11 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

1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 

Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct.

1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable

method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most

serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the district

court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted). 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. 

This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the

Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likelyto 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. 

Id. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel shall be denied.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for a court order

directing the prison to allow him access to the law library and provide him with writing materials, or in

the alternative, for appointment of counsel, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 6, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 178 Filed 05/06/11 Page 2 of 2