Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01301/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01301-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

VICTOR HUGO MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. LAWLESS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-01301-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND 

GRANTING SECOND EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 40)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Victor Hugo Martinez (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 9, 2012. This 

action for damages is proceeding against Defendants Morse, Herrera, Chamberlin, and Molina 

(“Defendants”) for failing to protect Plaintiff and for using excessive force, in violation of

Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

On April 6, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. After Plaintiff failed 

to file a response, the Court ordered him to file his opposition or statement of non-opposition 

within twenty-one days. On July 14, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a forty-five 

day extension of time to file a response. On August 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the 

appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action. 

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 

Case 1:12-cv-01301-LJO-SKO Document 41 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 3
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

(9th Cir. 1981). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970; 

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this determination, the 

Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to articulate 

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 

(citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither consideration is 

dispositive and they must be viewed together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation 

marks omitted); Wilborn 789 F.2d at 1331. 

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. The Court is faced with 

similar cases almost daily. Further, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely 

to succeed on the merits, as resolution of cases such as this rest largely on witness credibility, and 

based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot 

adequately articulate his claims. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970.

While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se status and 

his incarceration, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel. 

See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“Most actions require development of further facts during 

litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary 

to support the case.”) The test is whether exceptional circumstances exist and here, they do not. 

This is not a complex case, legally, and Plaintiff’s representation that he needs counsel to assist 

him with discovery lacks merit given that the deadline for the completion of all discovery was 

December 17, 2014. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-01301-LJO-SKO Document 41 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED. In 

light of this order, the Court sua sponte GRANTS Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days to file

his response to Defendants’ motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01301-LJO-SKO Document 41 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 3