Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00386/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00386-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steve Wilhelm
Plaintiff
Jeannie Woodford
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

Plaintiff Steve Wilhelm is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion for appointment of counsel, filed 

January 31, 2014. 

As Plaintiff was previously advised, 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; 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

at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither consideration is 

STEVE WILHELM,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNIE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00386-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 33]

Case 1:12-cv-00386-AWI-SAB Document 35 Filed 02/04/14 Page 1 of 2
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

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 as the Court 

has recommended that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a 

cognizable claim. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s January 31, 2014 motion for the appointment of 

counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00386-AWI-SAB Document 35 Filed 02/04/14 Page 2 of 2