Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01594/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01594-1/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

ANTHONY BELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. JACK ST. CLAIR, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-01594-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 3)

Plaintiff Anthony Bell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 1, 2013. Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel.

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel in a habeas case. This is a civil 

rights action and Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel. 

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 

Case 1:13-cv-01594-SKO Document 7 Filed 10/09/13 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

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 

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 early 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. Palmer, 

560 F.3d at 970.

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

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 9, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01594-SKO Document 7 Filed 10/09/13 Page 2 of 2