Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01426/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01426-5/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

EDDIE HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HASKY, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-01426-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER 

REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE 

ANSWER AND DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 35)

Plaintiff Eddie Harris, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 30, 2012. On October 17, 2014, 

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order requiring Defendants Hasky and Beltran to file an answer 

and seeking the appointment of counsel.

Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint by filing a motion for 

summary judgment for failure to exhaust, and the Court declines to require them to file an answer 

unless their motion is denied.1Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 

2014) (en banc), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 403 (2014). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for an order 

requiring them to do so is denied.

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 

 

1

In a Findings and Recommendations issued concurrently with this order, the Court recommended the motion be 

granted.

Case 1:12-cv-01426-LJO-SKO Document 37 Filed 02/17/15 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

(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 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. 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. Palmer, 

560 F.3d at 970. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for counsel is denied.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring Defendants to answer and 

for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01426-LJO-SKO Document 37 Filed 02/17/15 Page 2 of 2