Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00247/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00247-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 DWAYNE S. MONTGOMERY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

 I. SANCHEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00247-RRB

ORDER REGARDING

MOTION AT DOCKET 36

At Docket 36 Plaintiff Dwayne S. Montgomery, a state prisoner appearing pro se,

filed an untitled document in which he requested this Court appoint counsel. Generally, a

state prisoner has no right to counsel in civil actions.1

However, a court may under exceptional circumstances appoint counsel for

indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). When determining

whether exceptional circumstances exist, a court must consider the likelihood

of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Neither

of these considerations is dispositive, instead they must be viewed together.2

The availability of pro bono counsel to represent indigent prisoners is limited.3 While

this Court is not unmindful of the value of the assistance of counsel, both to Plaintiff and

1 See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that

there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for § 1983 claims).

2 Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted).

3

In his filing Montgomery acknowledges that his own efforts to obtain counsel

on a pro bono basis have been unsuccessful.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION AT DOCKET 36

Montgomery v Sanchez, 1:13-cv-00247-RRB – 1

Case 1:13-cv-00247-LJO-DLB Document 37 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 2
the Court itself, this is not a case in which it is necessary to appoint counsel. To the extent

Montgomery’s action survived initial screening it is an Eighth Amendment unnecessary

force/failure to protect claim. As such, it is primarily fact-driven, not a matter involving

complex legal issues. To the extent that Montgomery seeks the assistance of counsel in

conducting pre-trial discovery, the problems he describes are inherent in any action

brought by a prisoner. 

Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel at Docket 36 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2014.

S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER REGARDING MOTION AT DOCKET 36

Montgomery v Sanchez, 1:13-cv-00247-RRB – 2

Case 1:13-cv-00247-LJO-DLB Document 37 Filed 06/27/14 Page 2 of 2