Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01273/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01273-8/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 Irvin Ban Buren (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department 

of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On December 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for 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, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and 

IRVIN VAN BUREN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

EMERSON,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01273-LJO-DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Document 36)

Case 1:13-cv-01273-LJO-DLB Document 37 Filed 12/08/14 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

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. 

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. Moreover, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.

To the extent that Plaintiff believes that he may have difficulty in discovery, this is not grounds 

for the appointment of counsel.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01273-LJO-DLB Document 37 Filed 12/08/14 Page 2 of 2