Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05254/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05254-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFONZO TOLBERT, 

)

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

)

D. PEELER, )

)

Defendant )

____________________________________)

CV F 03-5254 AWI SMS P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR COUNSEL

(Document #61)

This action proceeds on Plaintiff Alfonzo Tolbert’s complaint, filed July 1, 2003,

against Defendant Peeler. Plaintiff Tolbert, an inmate in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections, brings this civil rights action against Defendant Peeler for alleged use

of excessive force in violation of Plaintiff Tolbert’s Eighth Amendment rights. The action is set

for trial to be held on February 27, 2007. On January 3, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for the

court to provide him with counsel. 

As explained previously by the Magistrate Judge, there is no constitutional right to

counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Title 28

U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a district court only the power to "request" that counsel represent a

litigant who is proceeding is forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). This does not give the

courts the power to make "coercive appointments of counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist.

Case 1:03-cv-05254-LJO -SMS Document 71 Filed 01/09/07 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, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant

under Section 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an

evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9 Cir.1997) withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en th

banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9 Cir.1998) (en banc); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9

th th

Cir.1986). 

Plaintiff has failed to make a showing that statutory grounds exist that entitle him

to counsel. Plaintiff appears able to present his claims adequately, and the issues at this stage of

the case are issues of fact. Plaintiff’s prior filings, including his pretrial statement and orders

concerning witnesses, are comprehensive and focused. Plaintiff has filed numerous motions

throughout this action. Although Plaintiff’s filings do not always achieve the quality of papers

that are usually prepared by lawyers, Plaintiff’s motions have been articulate and organized. 

Plaintiff is correct that he would be served by the assistance of counsel, and the court is not

unsympathetic to Plaintiff’s desire for counsel. However, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that

“any pro se litigant certainly would be better served with the assistance of counsel,” and as such

the Plaintiff must “show that because of the complexity of the claims he was unable to articulate

his positions.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Plaintiff has made no such showing. 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05254-LJO -SMS Document 71 Filed 01/09/07 Page 2 of 2