Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00987/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00987-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deuel Vocational Institute
Defendant
Devry John Reed
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Devry John Reed,

Plaintiff, Civ. No. S 05-0987 LKK PAN P

vs. Order on Request for Counsel

Deuel Vocational Institute,

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 May 27 and July 14, 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 

Case 2:05-cv-00987-LKK -PAN Document 14 Filed 07/29/05 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

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

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 his constitutional rights were

violated in connection with the provision of medical care. The

law governing this issue 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. 

Plaintiff’s May 27 and July 14, 2005, requests for

appointment of counsel therefore are denied.

Plaintiff shall amend his complaint, as directed in the 

Case 2:05-cv-00987-LKK -PAN Document 14 Filed 07/29/05 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

court’s June 3, 2005, order, within 20 days.

So ordered.

Dated: July 28, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00987-LKK -PAN Document 14 Filed 07/29/05 Page 3 of 3