Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00203/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00203-2/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

ANDRE WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. ZUNIGA, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00203-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER 

DENYING COUNSEL

(Docs. 6 and 11)

Plaintiff Andre White, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 8, 2013. On December 5, 2013, 

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion for the appointment of 

counsel, filed on February 11, 2013. Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b); Local Rule 230(j).

Plaintiff has shown no entitlement to reconsideration of the order, and his contention that 

the Court abused its discretion in denying his motion lacks merit. Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b); Local 

Rule 230(j); Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th 

Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 

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; 

Case 1:13-cv-00203-DAD-DLB Document 13 Filed 12/13/13 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

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 

assuming 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.

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.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00203-DAD-DLB Document 13 Filed 12/13/13 Page 2 of 2