Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00003/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00003-41/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

DARREN HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 163)

Plaintiff Darren Harris (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 on January 3, 2005. This 

action is proceeding on Plaintiff=s fourth amended complaint against Defendants Olivarria, 

Williams, and Kim for violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Olivarria and 

Lowden for violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 87.) This action was previously scheduled 

for trial on April 21, 2015, but on September 25, 2014, based Defendant Kim’s deployment to 

Afghanistan, the Court vacated the trial date and stayed the case pursuant to 50 App. U.S.C. § 

522(b), Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003. (Doc. 150.) Pursuant to the stay order,

Defendants Olivarria, Williams, Lowden, and Kim (“Defendants”) are required to file a status 

report on or before June 1, 2015. 

On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 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 

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 164 Filed 04/08/15 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

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, 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. 

Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 164 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 2