Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606-9/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

AHKEEM WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM PEDRIERO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-00606-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LIMITED 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL TO 

REPRESENT PLAINTIFF DURING HIS 

DEPOSITION SCHEDULED FOR 

OCTOBER 4, 2013

(Doc. 53)

Plaintiff Akheem Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 17, 2012. This action is proceeding 

against Defendants Garcia, Valdiz, Cortez, Silva, Castro, Day, Stephens, Collier, Torres, Delia, 

and Tordson for use of excessive physical force, in violation of the United States Constitution. 

On September 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the limited appointment of 

counsel to represent him during his deposition scheduled for October 4, 2013. Defendants filed an 

opposition on October 1, 2013. 

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 

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 56 Filed 10/02/13 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

27

28

2

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.

With respect to Plaintiff’s concerns regarding his deposition, while the Court recognizes 

that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se status and his incarceration, the test is not 

whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 

(“Most actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will 

seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) The test is 

whether exceptional circumstances exist and here, they do not.

Given Plaintiff’s concerns regarding his rights, the Court clarifies for Plaintiff that 

Defendants have the right to depose him during the discovery phase of this litigation, Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 30, and the failure to appear for a deposition, or the appearance at a deposition but the refusal to 

answer questions, is grounds for the imposition of sanctions, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a), (d). 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, 

filed on September 30, 2013, is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 56 Filed 10/02/13 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

27

28

3

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 56 Filed 10/02/13 Page 3 of 3