Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00604/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00604-23/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Huftile
Plaintiff
Jack Vognsen
Defendant

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

1 See Cunningham v. Bloxom, 80 F. App’x 587, 588 (9th Cir.

2003)(quoting U.S. v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated

in Klickitat County, State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 799, 804 (9th

Cir. 1986))(emphasis added).

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

2:03-CV-0604-RRB-JFM-P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:03-CV-0604-RRB-JFM-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

At Docket 61 is Plaintiff Michael Huftile (“Plaintiff”),

with a Motion and Notice of Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of

Appointment of Counsel; wherein, Plaintiff asks the Court to

reconsider his motion for appointment of counsel.

Inasmuch as the Court concludes it “has an affirmative

duty to ‘assist’ a party in obtaining representation only if

‘exceptional circumstances’ are found,”1

 Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration at Docket 61, filed on July 5, 2007, is hereby

DENIED. Moreover,

MICHAEL HUFTILE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JACK VOGNSEN,

Defendant.

Case 2:03-cv-00604-RRB -JFM Document 68 Filed 08/14/07 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

2 Kevin W. Brown, J.D., Appointment of Counsel, In Civil

Rights Action, Under Forma Pauperis Provisions (28 U.S.C.A. §

1915(d)), 69 A.L.R. Fed. 666 (1984)(footnotes omitted)(emphasis

added).

3 Docket 58 at 2.

4 At Docket 62, and just six days after filing his Motion

for Reconsideration, Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal

regarding this matter. Consequently, the Court’s ruling contained

herein may be moot. Notwithstanding, and out of an abundance of

caution, the Court enters its findings.

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

2:03-CV-0604-RRB-JFM-P

While defendants in criminal actions have a

constitutional right to be represented by an

attorney, it is widely recognized that no such

concurrent right is possessed by parties to

civil actions. Indigent parties in civil

actions who are unable to obtain counsel may

apply for the appointment of counsel under 28

U.S.C.A. § 1915(d). Literally read, this

statute allows a court to "request" an

attorney to represent an indigent party,

although it is generally viewed as authorizing

appointment. The decision to appoint counsel

under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915 lies within the

discretion of the court.2

This Court has previously determined that “[P]laintiff’s

health concerns do not present such extraordinary circumstances

that the appointment of counsel is required, particularly because

it is unlikely [P]laintiff will succeed on the merits of this

case.”3

 Because Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration at Docket

61 does little to alter the Court’s reasoning with respect to the

same, it is DENIED.4

ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00604-RRB -JFM Document 68 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 2