Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03034/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03034-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STANLEY BURTON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LAILA DARBY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-03034 KJM AC 

ORDER and ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 Plaintiff, appearing in pro se, filed a complaint and requested to proceed in forma pauperis 

on December 28, 2023. ECF Nos. 1, 2. On January 31, 2024, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis and instructed plaintiff to complete and submit service 

documents to the U.S. Marshals within 15 days, and to file a statement with the court regarding 

the submission of documents. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff did not timely file a notice with the court 

regarding the submission of service documents. Plaintiff has thus not complied with the court’s 

order and service has not been completed. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with 

court orders or the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions 

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 

 On February 14, 16, and 20, 2024, plaintiff filed motions to appoint counsel. ECF Nos. 6, 

7, and 8. One filing indicated that plaintiff served the application for appointment of counsel 

upon the U.S. Marshals, but this filing did not mention submission of service documents. ECF 

Case 2:23-cv-03034-KJM-AC Document 9 Filed 02/23/24 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 

No. 7 at 2-3. Plaintiff’s motions indicate that counsel is requested because plaintiff is in pro se 

and cannot afford an attorney. See ECF No. 6 at 1. In civil cases, a pro se litigant’s right to 

counsel “is a privilege and not a right.” United States ex Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 

793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation omitted). “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in 

exceptional cases.” Id. When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court 

must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to 

articulate her claims pro se considering the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Here, having considered the relevant factors, the court finds there are no exceptional 

circumstances and that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Plaintiff’s case is not 

overly complex, and the fact of not being able to afford an attorney is not enough to warrant 

appointment of counsel in a civil case. Appointment of counsel therefore is not appropriate. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause, in writing no later than March 8, 2024, why this 

action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute; 

2. Plaintiff’s filing of a notice stating that he has provided the required service documents to 

the U.S. Marshals will be deemed good cause shown and will result in discharge of the 

Order to Show Cause; and 

3. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 6, 7, and 8) are DENIED; and 

4. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the undersigned will recommend that this case 

be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

DATED: February 22, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-03034-KJM-AC Document 9 Filed 02/23/24 Page 2 of 2