Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00006/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00006-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

HERMAN D. SHEAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O VANG,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00006-OWW-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR THE

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docs. 48 and 51)

On April 7, 2011, and April 21, 2011, Plaintiff Herman D. Shead, a state prisoner proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action, filed motions 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 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 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

1

Case 1:09-cv-00006-AWI-SKO Document 54 Filed 05/02/11 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

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 motions for the appointment of counsel are HEREBY

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2011 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00006-AWI-SKO Document 54 Filed 05/02/11 Page 2 of 2