Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00309/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00309-11/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY ADONIS MURPHY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

KELSO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00309-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

(Doc.47)

Plaintiff, Gregory Adonis Murphy, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff does not have a 

constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525, and the Court 

cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 

1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary 

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

In the present case, once again, the Court does not find the required exceptional 

Case 1:12-cv-00309-LJO-JLT Document 48 Filed 10/23/14 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

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. 

This 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.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed October 

16, 2014 (Doc. 47), is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00309-LJO-JLT Document 48 Filed 10/23/14 Page 2 of 2