Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606-2/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

AHKEEM WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM PEDRIERO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00606-SKO PC

ORDER ADDRESSING NOTICE RE

RECORDS SUBPOENA AND DENYING

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 24)

Plaintiff Akheem Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 17, 2012. This action is proceeding

against Defendants Garcia, Valdiz, Cortez, Silva, Castro, Day, Stephens, Collier, Torres, Delia, and

Tordson for use of excessive physical force, in violation of the United States Constitution. 

On April 22, 2013, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court regarding receipt of a records subpoena

from Defendants and requesting the appointment of counsel. The letter was filed and shall be

construed as a motion. 

The Court cannot give Plaintiff legal advice regarding the prosecution of his case. See Pliler

v. Ford, 5452 U.S. 225, 231, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 2446 (2004) (Courts “have no obligation to act as

counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.”) However, Plaintiff is reminded that on March 12, 2013,

the Court issued an order opening the discoveryphase of this litigation and setting pretrial deadlines. 

Therefore, both Plaintiff and Defendants are entitled to engage in discoveryat this time, and Plaintiff

is required to provide discovery if served with a discovery request that complies with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The failure to do so may result in sanctions. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 37.

1

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 26 Filed 05/01/13 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

With respect to 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 dispositive and theymust 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. Id.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s notice regarding the records subpoena is deemed addressed, and

Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 26 Filed 05/01/13 Page 2 of 2