Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00786/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00786-6/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

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

Plaintiff Gary Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 2, 2014, 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 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. 

GARY WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

S. STEGLINSKI, et. al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00786-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 49)

Case 1:12-cv-00786-SAB Document 51 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 2
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

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances exist at this 

time. 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. The fact that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

does not warrant “exceptional” circumstances to justify appointment of counsel. In addition, 

circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library 

access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 

counsel. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s September 2, 2014, motion for the appointment of 

counsel is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00786-SAB Document 51 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 2