Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00109/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00109-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

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

- 1 - 08CV109 - IEG - LSP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KARAL HASANI EFIA BATTLE-EL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08CV109 - IEG - LSP

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

vs.

LANCE A. KNAPP; MARY F. HUTSON;

NEBRASKA EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Defendant.

Plaintiff moves the Court for appointment of counsel to assist in his appeal. (Doc. No. 27.)

Because plaintiff filed this motion simultaneously with his notice of appeal, the Court retains

jurisdiction over this motion. For the following reasons, the Court denies plaintiff’s request.

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless an indigent

litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452

U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, district courts are granted discretion to

appoint counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both

the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate [her] claims pro se

in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both

must be viewed together before reaching a decision.’” Id. 

Evaluating these two factors, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to appoint counsel.

Case 3:08-cv-00109-IEG-LSP Document 28 Filed 10/29/08 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

27

28

- 2 - 08CV109 - IEG - LSP

Plaintiff has not show likelihood of success on the merits in his pleadings in this case. Furthermore,

plaintiff seems reasonably able to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal

issues involved. Throughout his pleadings, Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to perform relevant

legal research and writing. These factors weigh against granting appointment of counsel.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: October 29, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-00109-IEG-LSP Document 28 Filed 10/29/08 Page 2 of 2