Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01767/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01767-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REX CHAPPELL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GERBER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01767-RRB

ORDER DENYING MOTION

AT DOCKET 37

At Docket 37 Plaintiff Rex Chappell has filed a request for the assistance of counsel.

Generally, a state prisoner has no right to counsel in civil actions.1

However, a court may under exceptional circumstances appoint counsel

for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). When determining

whether exceptional circumstances exist, a court must consider the likelihood

of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Neither of

these considerations is dispositive, instead they must be viewed together.

2

The availability of pro bono counsel to represent indigent prisoners is limited. A review

of the file in this case indicates that, in screening the Complaint, Chappell was permitted to

proceed solely on his Second and Sixth Claims for Relief (deliberate medical indifference

based upon a claim that Chappell was denied adequate medication for pain and suffering

1 See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that

there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for § 1983 claims).

2 Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted).

ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 37

Chappell v. et al., 1:12-cv-01767-RRB – 1

Case 1:12-cv-01767-RRB Document 38 Filed 10/08/14 Page 1 of 2
resulting from a degenerative bone and disc condition). All other claims were dismissed

without prejudice for failure to properly exhaust his administrative remedies.

3 Given the high

threshold that Chappell must meet to establish a medical indifference claim,

4

the likelihood that

he will succeed on the merits is low. While this Court is not unmindful of the value of the

assistance of counsel, both to Plaintiff and the Court itself, this is not a case in which it is

necessary to appoint counsel. Accordingly, the request for the appointment of counsel at

Docket 37 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8

th day of October, 2014.

S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 Docket 16.

4 TheSupreme Court has distinguished deliberate indifference to serious medical

needs of prisoners from negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, holding that

only the former violates the Constitution. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–106 (1976);

see Jett v. Penner, 429 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (articulating the two-part test

applicable in this Circuit).

ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 37

Chappell v. et al., 1:12-cv-01767-RRB – 2

Case 1:12-cv-01767-RRB Document 38 Filed 10/08/14 Page 2 of 2