Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01498/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01498-5/pdf.json

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

---

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 - 08cv1498

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVY KELVIN POUGH

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv1498 JM(RBB) 

ORDER DENYING THIRD MOTION

vs. FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ALMAGER, V.M.; et al., 

Defendants.

On February 3, 2009 and again on May 4, 2009, the court denied Plaintiff’s Motions for

Appointment of Counsel (“Motion”) to assist him in prosecuting his civil rights action brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff now renews his motion for appointment of counsel, arguing

that the case is factually complex, his incarceration results in a limited ability to investigate, and the

case is legally complex. The court denies Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See 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 [his or 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. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Here, upon review of the documents submitted by Plaintiff, including the Third Amended

Case 3:08-cv-01498-JM-RBB Document 49 Filed 05/26/10 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 - 08cv1498

Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff has a sufficient grasp of his case, the legal issues involved, and is

able to adequately articulate the basis of his complaint. The complaint adequately sets forth a factual

basis for his claims. Further, the documents filed by Plaintiff are articulate, coherent, and demonstrate

a fundamental understanding of the issues. Under these circumstances, the Court denies Plaintiff’s

third request for appointment of counsel because it is not warranted by the interests of justice. LaMere

v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 26, 2010

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties

Case 3:08-cv-01498-JM-RBB Document 49 Filed 05/26/10 Page 2 of 2