Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01329-20/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

FLOYD SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. PALMER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01329-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 82)

Plaintiff Floyd Scott, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 29, 2009. On April 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the

appointment of counsel.

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). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1), but 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. 1981). 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 theymust be viewed together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks

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

///

1

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 85 Filed 05/01/12 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

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. Id. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 85 Filed 05/01/12 Page 2 of 2