Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00043/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00043-5/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

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

Plaintiff Larry Singleton, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner. He is proceeding pro 

se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants M. D. Biter and Sherri Lopez.

On November 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for 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 and 

LARRY SINGLETON, SR.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M.D. BITER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12cv00043 AWI DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(Document 26)

Case 1:12-cv-00043-AWI-DLB Document 33 Filed 01/02/14 Page 1 of 2
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

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. Moreover, at this stage of the proceedings, there is no indication that Plaintiff is unable 

to articulate his claims.

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

PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9b0hied

Case 1:12-cv-00043-AWI-DLB Document 33 Filed 01/02/14 Page 2 of 2