Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01451/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01451-0/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Burch M. Bowen,

Plaintiff, Civ. S 00-1451 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

Joe Trieber, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action. Plaintiff moved for

appointment of counsel September 26, 2005. 

In proceedings that do not threaten a litigant with loss of

physical liberty, there presumptively is no right to appointed

counsel. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18,

26-27 (1981). Section 1915(e)(1) of Title 28 confers discretion

upon the court to request counsel represent an indigent civil

litigant. Mallard v. District Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).

Case 2:00-cv-01451-LKK -PAN Document 103 Filed 09/30/05 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

2

In deciding whether to appoint counsel the court exercises

discretion governed by a number of factors, including the

likelihood of success on the merits and the applicant’s ability

to present his claims in light of their complexity. Weygandt v.

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); see also, LaMere v.

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). Ordinarily the

presumption of regularity in the state’s procedures for confining

prisoners suggests a lack of likely success and counsels against

appointment of counsel. See Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887

(7th Cir. 1981). As a general rule, the court will not appoint

counsel unless the applicant shows his claim has merit in fact

and law. Id. Even if the applicant overcomes this hurdle, the

court will not appoint counsel if the law is settled and the

material facts are within the plaintiff’s possession, viz., they

do not require investigation outside the prison walls. Id. at

887-88. 

Here, plaintiff alleges defendants violated his

constitutional rights in connection with an on-the-job injury at

the tool and die shop at California State Prison - Folsom. The

law governing these issues is settled and investigation outside

the prison walls is unnecessary to discover material facts. 

There is, on the record before the court, no reason to believe

appointment of counsel would be of significant benefit. The

court will not appoint counsel 

 September 23, 2005, plaintiff moved to extend discovery by

 30 days so he can file and serve a motion to compel. As stated 

Case 2:00-cv-01451-LKK -PAN Document 103 Filed 09/30/05 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

3

in the court’s May 26, 2005, scheduling order, discovery was to

have been completed and motions to compel ruled upon and complied

with by September 23, 2005. An extension of 30 days to file and

serve the motion would be of no use, and plaintiff fails to

establish cause for the lengthy extension necessary to obtain a

ruling on, and the benefits of, a motion to compel. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 26, 2005, request for the

appointment of counsel is denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s September 23, 2005, motion to extend

discovery is denied.

Dated: September 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:00-cv-01451-LKK -PAN Document 103 Filed 09/30/05 Page 3 of 3