Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01250/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01250-27/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Anderson
Defendant
Sylester Williams
Plaintiff

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 Sylester Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the 

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 302.

On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a fourth motion for the appointment of counsel. As this 

Court has previously informed Plaintiff, district courts lack the authority to require counsel to 

represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. 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 

SYLESTER WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT R. ANDERSON, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01250-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 123]

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 125 Filed 04/24/15 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

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. 

Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in preparation for trial, including 

making contact with certain witnesses. Plaintiff’s arguments do not amount to exceptional 

circumstances. The Court finds, for the fourth time, that Plaintiff is capable of articulating his claims 

without the appointment of counsel. Although legal matters may be inherently complex and 

incarceration may limit certain preparation for trial, these factors are common to all prisoner litigation. 

While a pro se litigant, “would be better served with the assistance of counsel,” Rand v. Rowland, 113 

F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), as long as a pro se litigant, like Plaintiff in this case, is able to 

“articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” 

requirement does not exist. Id. Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement claim against Defendant 

Anderson is not complex, and based upon the documents he has filed with the Court, he appears to be 

more than capable of articulating and litigating this case . Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 125 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 2