IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 30, 2013
MARIO NAVARRO, PLAINTIFF,
DEBRA HERNDON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 7, 2012, the undersigned recommended that this action proceed on plaintiff's denial of access claims against defendants Grannis and O'Brien (Dkt. No. 84), in addition to the other claims previously identified by the undersigned and district judge (Dkt. Nos. 78, 79). Plaintiff now requests appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is premature. This court is unable to identify the cognizable claims in this action until the district judge has an opportunity to review the undersigned's supplemental findings and recommendations. This factor is important in assessing plaintiff's request for counsel, which includes an assessment of plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits of his claims, as well as plaintiff's ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff may renew his request after the district judge has ruled on the supplemental findings and recommendations.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's January 22, 2013 motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 85), is denied without prejudice.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.