Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00731/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00731-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

17cv731-WQH-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEDRIC EUGENE JOHNSON, 

CDCR #AZ-2648,

Plaintiff, 

v.

A. DE LA TRINIDAD; R. FLORES; 

J. SOTO; D. LAMONT,

Defendants. 

Case No.: 17cv731-WQH-MDD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

On January 4, 2018, Plaintiff moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF 

No. 28). The Court has reviewed the submission and DENIES Plaintiff’s 

motion for the reasons stated below.

Plaintiff claims that (1) he is unable to afford counsel, (2) he has tried to 

retain an attorney to no avail, (3) he has no access to phones, (4) the issues in 

this case are complex, (5) his incarceration impacts his ability to litigate the 

issues in this case, and (6) he is not qualified to present evidence or crossexamine witnesses. (ECF No, 28 at 1-3). 

Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). District courts have discretion 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney represent 

Case 3:17-cv-00731-WQH-MDD Document 29 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv731-WQH-MDD

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

indigent civil litigants upon a showing of 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 petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light 

of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these factors is 

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id.

at 1017 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Plaintiff has litigated this case for over eight months without assistance 

of counsel. In that time, Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate 

his claims and his pleadings survived the early screening process. (See ECF 

Nos. 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 19). Further, Plaintiff’s claims are not particularly 

complex, and although sufficiently plead to survive screening, Plaintiff has 

not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.

Thus, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the “exceptional circumstances”

required for the Court to appoint counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Appoint Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00731-WQH-MDD Document 29 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2