Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01025/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01025-18/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

DENELL CAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(Doc. 96)

Plaintiff Denell Caver, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 20, 2011. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on April 10, 2012, against Defendants Gomez, Stark, 

and Garcia for acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment of the United States Constitution. Jury trial is scheduled for February 9, 2016.

On August 31, 2015, 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. 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 

Case 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO Document 97 Filed 09/04/15 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

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 

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with 

similar cases almost daily. Further, 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.

While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se status and 

his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel. 

See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most actions require 

development of further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to 

investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) The test is whether exceptional 

circumstances exist and here, at this juncture, they do not. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO Document 97 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 2