Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01444/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01444-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. SPARKMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, et

al., 

Defendants. 

________________________________/

CASE No. 1:12-cv-01444-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 6)

On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff Michael A. Sparkman, a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Court screened the Complaint and on

October 29, 2012 dismissed it for failure to state a claim, with leave to file an amended

complaint. (Order Dismiss. Compl., ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended

Complaint (First. Am. Comp., ECF No. 7) on November 19, 2012, and also on that date

filed a motion for appointment of counsel (Mot. for Counsel, ECF No. 6.) The latter

motion is now before the Court. 

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action,

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), partially overruled on other

grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an

-1-

Case 1:12-cv-01444-AWI-MJS Document 8 Filed 11/28/12 Page 1 of 3
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

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 (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 or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id.

Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before

reaching a decision on request of counsel under section 1915(d).” Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970

(9th Cir. 2009). 

The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the Plaintiff. See

Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (plaintiff “has not made the requisite showing of exceptional

circumstances for the appointment of counsel”); accord, Alvarez v. Jacquez, 415 F.

App’x 830, 831 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff “failed to show exceptional circumstances”);

Simmons v. Hambly, 14 F. App’x 918, 919 (9th Cir. 2001) (same); Davis v. Yarborough,

459 F. App’x 601, 602 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff “did not show the ‘exceptional

circumstances’ required to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).”)

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, the Court

cannot make a determination at this early stage of the litigation that Plaintiff is likely to

succeed on the merits. He has yet to state a cognizable federal claim. The deliberate

indifference claims screened by the Court do not appear to be novel or unduly complex,

and remain in dispute. The facts alleged to date appear straightforward and unlikely to

-2-

Case 1:12-cv-01444-AWI-MJS Document 8 Filed 11/28/12 Page 2 of 3
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

involve extensive investigation and discovery.

The papers filed by Plaintiff in this case reflect an appreciation of the legal issues

and standards and an ability to express same adequately in writing. The Court notes

Plaintiff’s reference in his motion to a history of treatment with psycho tropic

medications. It appears from the pleadings on file that he nevertheless remains capable

of adequately articulating his claims.

Finally, nothing suggests that Plaintiff has made diligent effort to secure

counsel. Plaintiff’s lack of funds alone does not necessarily mean efforts to secure 1

counsel would be futile.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No.

6) is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

12eob4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

See e.g. Thornton v. Schwarzenegger, 2011 W L 90320, *3-4 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (cases cited).

1

-3-

Case 1:12-cv-01444-AWI-MJS Document 8 Filed 11/28/12 Page 3 of 3