Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02767/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02767-4/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 AARON JAYNE, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

TOM BOSENKO, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:08-cv-2767-MSB

ORDER

Michael Aaron Jayne, who is confined in the Shasta County Jail in Redding,

California, has filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. # 1). Currently

pending the Court is Jayne’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dkt. # 67). For the

following reasons, the Court denies Jayne’s motion.

Section 1915(e) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code provides the Court the discretion

to appoint counsel to an indigent party in a civil action. However, the Ninth Circuit

has advised that such motions should be granted “only in exceptional circumstances.” 

United States v. McQuade, 579 F.2d 1180, 1181 (9th Cir. 1976). Factors the Court

may consider in making this assessment include “the likelihood of success on the

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

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th

Cir. 1988) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 

Case 2:08-cv-02767-TLN-EFB Document 80 Filed 11/29/10 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

Jayne argues that the Court should appoint counsel because the Shasta County

Defendants have “block[ed] [his] access to this Court” by denying him access to the

law library; prohibiting him from making copies of his motions; “harass [him] and

scatter[ing] [his] legal work”; limiting his ability to “contact witnesses on the

telephone”; and preventing him from “prepar[ing] the proper motions to litigate [this

case].” (Dkt. # 67, at 1–2). 

To date, Jayne has filed six motions for preliminary injunctions, four motions

to compel, a motion stipulating to a protective order, a motion for default judgment,

and responses and replies to Defendants’ filings. In light of these voluminous filings,

the Court does not find credible Jayne’s claims that he is being “block[ed]” from

litigating this case pro se. Moreover, Jayne’s claims are not so complex that he is

unable to articulate them, as is amply evidenced by his filings. Finally, Jayne has

made no showing regarding the likelihood that he will succeed on the merits. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Jayne has not shown the “exceptional

circumstances” that warrant appointment of counsel. McQuade, 579 F.2d at 1181; see

also Richards, 864 F.2d at 87. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. # 67) is DENIED.

DATED this 24th day of November, 2010.

 /s/ Marsha S. Berzon 

 MARSHA S. BERZON United States Circuit Judge, sitting by designation

- 2 -

Case 2:08-cv-02767-TLN-EFB Document 80 Filed 11/29/10 Page 2 of 2