Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01248/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01248-5/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

Plaintiff Horace Bell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on July 

27, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) On August 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of 

counsel. (ECF No. 25.)

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. 

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

HORACE BELL,

Plaintiff

v.

S. HEBERLING, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR COUNSEL

(ECF No. 25)

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 26 Filed 08/22/13 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

2

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. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s August 21, 2013 motion for the appointment of 

counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2013 _ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 26 Filed 08/22/13 Page 2 of 2