Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02735/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02735-0/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Walter L. Cole,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2735 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

Lea, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking

redress for alleged civil rights violations.

The amended complaint states cognizable claims for relief

against defendants Swoop, Tirella and Morgan pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The court construes

plaintiff’s claims against defendant “Marks Board Committee” as

against Doe defendants who comprise such committee. Plaintiff

may seek to identify the members of the committee, through

discovery or other means, and request leave to amend his

Case 2:04-cv-02735-MCE -EFB Document 11 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 4
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

2

complaint to name them.

Plaintiff moved for appointment of counsel January 12, 2005.

In proceedings that do not threaten a litigant with loss of

physical liberty, there presumptively is no right to appointed

counsel. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18,

26-27 (1981). Section 1915(e)(1) of Title 28 confers discretion

upon the court to request counsel represent an indigent civil

litigant. Mallard v. District Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).

In deciding whether to appoint counsel the court exercises

discretion governed by a number of factors, including the

likelihood of success on the merits and the applicant’s ability

to present his claims in light of their complexity. Weygandt v.

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); see also, LaMere v.

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). Ordinarily the

presumption of regularity in the state’s procedures for confining

prisoners suggests a lack of likely success and counsels against

appointment of counsel. See Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887

(7th Cir. 1981). As a general rule, the court will not appoint

counsel unless the applicant shows his claim has merit in fact

and law. Id. Even if the applicant overcomes this hurdle, the

court will not appoint counsel if the law is settled and the

material facts are within the plaintiff’s possession, viz., they

do not require investigation outside the prison walls. Id. at

887-88. 

Here, plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were

violated in connection with medical care provided or withheld by

Case 2:04-cv-02735-MCE -EFB Document 11 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 4
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

defendants. The law governing these issues is settled and

investigation outside the prison walls is unnecessary to discover

material facts. There is, on the record before the court, no

reason to believe appointment of counsel would be of significant

benefit. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiff's January 12, 2005, motion to appoint counsel

is denied.

2. Service is appropriate for defendants Swoop, Tirella and

Morgan.

3. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and one copy of the 

May 13, 2005, pleading.

4. Within 30 days from service of this order, plaintiff

shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and

submit it to the court with the completed summons and USM-285

forms and four copies of the May 13, 2005, pleading.

5. Upon receipt of the necessary materials, the court will

direct the United States Marshal to serve defendants Swoop,

Tirella and Morgan pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

Dated: May 31, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02735-MCE -EFB Document 11 Filed 06/01/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Walter L. Cole,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2735 MCE PAN P

vs. Notice of Submission of Documents

Lea, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff hereby submits the following documents in

compliance with the court's order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed forms USM-285 

 copies of the 

 Amended Complaint

Dated: 

 _________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02735-MCE -EFB Document 11 Filed 06/01/05 Page 4 of 4