Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05254/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05254-20/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFONZO TOLBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. PEELER,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-05254-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; AND

ORDER REGARDING FIVE WITNESSES

(Doc. 111)

Plaintiff Alfonzo Tolbert (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 24, 2007, plaintiff

filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to

appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the

court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard

v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814,

1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity

of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

///

Case 1:03-cv-05254-LJO -SMS Document 114 Filed 09/25/07 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

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. This court is faced with

similar cases almost daily. Further, based on a review of the record in this case, the court cannot

make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and the court does not find that

plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. 

Further, the court notes that this action has been pending for more than four years. Plaintiff’s

motion for the appointment of counsel was received by the court in the afternoon of September 24,

2007, after jury trial began. As such, the motion is not timely.

Plaintiff also states in the motion that he needs five witnesses to be present, although plaintiff

does not identify the five witnesses or set forth any supporting explanation. Plaintiff was given

deadlines for filing motions for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses and submitting funds to

subpoena unincarcerated witnesses. Plaintiff previously filed motions regarding both incarcerated

and unincarcerated witnesses, and his motions have been ruled on by the court. (Docs. 72, 76, 90.)

Plaintiff’s motion regarding witnesses is untimely and raises no new issues. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel and regarding

five witnesses, filed September 24, 2007, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05254-LJO -SMS Document 114 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 2