Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00184/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00184-7/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE R. SCOTT, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 2:07-cv-00184-KJD-PAL

)

vs. ) ORDER

) 

KELLER, et al., ) (Mtn to Appt Counsel - Dkt. #38)

) (Mtn to Appt Counsel - Dkt. #39)

Defendants. ) (Mtn to Appt Counsel - Dkt. #48)

__________________________________________) 

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motions to Appoint Counsel for Federal Civil

Rights Proceedings (Dkt. ##38, 39, 48). Plaintiffs Motions assert that he is without funds to retain an

attorney, and he requires assistance in preparing discovery responses. Plaintiff states that because he is

incarcerated, his ability to collect evidence and interview witnesses is extremely limited. He asserts

that any evidence he does collect will be disputed by the Defendants, and credibility issues may become

an important factor. Lastly, he asserts that complex legal issues may arise.

In civil cases the district court may only appoint counsel to litigants proceeding in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). That statute does not authorize courts to require counsel

to represent such litigants, but only to request such representation on a pro bono basis. See Mallard v.

United States Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). The appointment of counsel pursuant to section

1915(e)(1) is limited to cases presenting exceptional circumstances. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d

1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam). Appointment of counsel is not a matter of right. See Ivey v.

Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982).

In making its determination, the court will consider the likelihood of the success of the party’s

claims on the merits, and the ability of the party to articulate claims pro se in light of the complexity of

the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). It is,

Case 2:07-cv-00184-KJD-PAL Document 87 Filed 09/30/09 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

therefore, the plaintiff’s duty in a motion based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to demonstrate to the court that

he cannot afford to obtain private counsel, that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim, and

that the legal issues involved are too complex to be presented adequately without the assistance of

counsel

Here, upon reviewing the motions and Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, it

appears that Plaintiff is not financially able to retain counsel. See Bradshaw, 662 F.2d at 1319 (noting

that “a lesser showing of indigency is required to satisfy the test for appointment of counsel [than to

proceed in forma pauperis]”). The second factor weighs against Plaintiff. He has not established that

he is likely to succeed on the merits of his case. Lastly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there are

complex factual or legal issues involved in this case. This case does not raise complex issues of fact or

law. The final factor the court must examine is whether Plaintiff’s claims have potential merit. 

Although the allegations set forth in the complaint state a claim for initial screening purposes under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915, they are insufficient on their own to establish that Plaintiff’s claims have merit. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. ##38, 39, 48) are

DENIED.

Dated this 23rd day of September, 2009. 

___________________________________

PEGGY A. LEEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:07-cv-00184-KJD-PAL Document 87 Filed 09/30/09 Page 2 of 2