Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00546/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00546-1/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

Andre Ramon Craver,

Plaintiff, Civ. No. S 05-0546 FCD PAN P

vs. Order on Request for Counsel

M. Norgaard, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action. Plaintiff moved for

appointment of counsel on July 11, 2005. 

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).

Case 2:05-cv-00546-FCD-PAN Document 12 Filed 08/03/05 Page 1 of 3
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

In deciding whether to appoint counsel the court exercises

discretion governed by a number of factors, including the

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 for confining

prisoners 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 the prison walls. Id. at

887-88. 

Here, plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were

violated when he was denied access to the courts and denied

adequate medical treatment. The law governing these issues is

settled and investigation outside the prison walls is unnecessary

to discover material facts. There is, on the record before the

court, no reason to believe appointment of counsel would be of

significant benefit. 

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00546-FCD-PAN Document 12 Filed 08/03/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Plaintiff’s July 11, 2005, request for the appointment of

counsel therefore is denied.

So ordered.

Dated: August 2, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00546-FCD-PAN Document 12 Filed 08/03/05 Page 3 of 3