Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00273/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00273-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT BISHOP

Plaintiff,

v.

KELLY HARRINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00094-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL

(ECF No. 24)

Plaintiff Robert Bishop (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action on January 10, 2011, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 

14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 24.)

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. 1986). 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 they must be viewed together. Palmer 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation 

Case 1:15-cv-00273-LJO-SAB Document 26 Filed 06/19/13 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

2

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

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances exist at 

this time. 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. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2013 _ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00273-LJO-SAB Document 26 Filed 06/19/13 Page 2 of 2