Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00643/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00643-2/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

ANTHONY E. JOHNSON, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEXTON, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-00643-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND 

GRANTING THIRTY-DAY EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO AMEND

(Doc. 13)

Plaintiff Anthony E. Johnson, Sr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 30, 2014. On February 17, 

2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim.

On June 22, 2015, after obtaining a sixty-day extension of time to amend, 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 

(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 

Case 1:14-cv-00643-SKO Document 14 Filed 06/24/15 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

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, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a 

determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, 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.

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

without prejudice. Plaintiff is GRANTED, sua sponte, a thirty-day extension of time to file his 

amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00643-SKO Document 14 Filed 06/24/15 Page 2 of 2