Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00170/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00170-0/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

16cv170 BAS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY McQUERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv170 BAS

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S LETTER

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

On July 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed an ex parte letter with the Court inquiring “if [he] 

was going to be appointed an attorney?” [ECF No. 12 at 1.] Plaintiff seems to indicate in 

the letter that appointment of counsel may be warranted due to his alleged indigency. Id.

“There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.” Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 

1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 

F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil 

proceedings.”) (citation omitted). Federal courts do not have the authority “to make 

coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 

296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 

569 (9th Cir. 1995).

Case 3:16-cv-00170-BAS-BGS Document 13 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 2
2

16cv170 BAS

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

Districts courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to 

“request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of 

“exceptional circumstances.” See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 

1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. “A finding of the exceptional 

circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least an evaluation of the 

likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s 

ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” 

Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 

Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

The Court denies Plaintiff’s letter request, as neither the interests of justice nor 

exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. 

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Plaintiff has thus far 

been able to articulate his claims for use of excessive force and deliberate indifference. 

[ECF No. 1.] Moreover, it does not appear that the legal issues involved with respect to 

those claims are so complex that counsel is warranted at this stage of the proceedings. 

See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.3d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that, “If all that 

was required to establish successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a 

demonstration of the need for development of further facts, practically all cases would 

involve complex legal issues.”). Because exceptional circumstances have not been shown 

at this point to warrant appointment of counsel, Plaintiff’s letter request for appointment 

of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated: July 21, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-00170-BAS-BGS Document 13 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 2