Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01624/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01624-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

ROBERT DANIEL PERRY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 )

v. ) 

)

M. AGUIRRE, et al., )

 )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:05-CV-01624-LJO-DLB-P

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

INVESTIGATOR

(Docs. 69, 70)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On March 16, 2007, plaintiff filed motions seeking the appointment of counsel and an

investigator. 

With respect to plaintiff's motion for 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

Case 1:05-cv-01624-LJO -DLB Document 73 Filed 04/03/07 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

the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the

district court must evaluate both the likelihood ofsuccess ofthe 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). 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, at this early stage in the proceedings, 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.

Id. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel shall be denied.

With respect to plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of an investigator, the expenditure

of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress. See Tedder

v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). The in forma pauperis statute does not

authorize the expenditure of public funds for the purpose sought by plaintiff in the instant motion.

Therefore, plaintiff's motion for the appointment of an investigator shall be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED, and

2. Plaintiff's motion for an investigator is DENIED.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 3, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01624-LJO -DLB Document 73 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 2