Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00585/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00585-0/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

Michael Huftile,

Plaintiff, Civ. No. S 03-0585 DFL PAN P

vs. Order on Request for Counsel

Val G. Farmer,

Defendant.

-oOoPlaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action. Plaintiff moved May 24, 2004,

for appointment of counsel.

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

Case 2:03-cv-00585-DFL-PAN Document 15 Filed 05/11/05 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

2

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 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 plaintiff’s place of confinement. Id. at

887-88. 

Here, plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were

violated when defendant revealed privileged materials and

testified against plaintiff in civil commitment proceedings. 

There is, on the record before the court, no reason to believe

appointment of counsel would be of significant benefit. 

 Plaintiff’s May 24, 2004, request for the appointment of

counsel therefore is denied.

So ordered.

Dated: May 10, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-00585-DFL-PAN Document 15 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 2