Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02812/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02812-2/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

15-cv-2812 JLS (JLB)

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

ANTHONY MCGINNIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

A.T. RAMOS,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-cv-2812 JLS (JLB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

SECOND MOTION TO REQUEST 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 25]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion requesting appointment of counsel. 

(ECF No. 25.) Having reviewed Plaintiff’s request for counsel in conjunction with the case 

record, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to meet the criteria for the Court to appoint 

him counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

As stated in the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s first motion requesting the 

appointment of counsel, there is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in 

§ 1983 cases. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). However, the 

Ninth Circuit has held that “a court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel 

for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 

965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 906 (2010) (quoting Agyeman v. Corrs. 

Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied sub nom., Gerber v. 

Case 3:15-cv-02812-JLS-JLB Document 26 Filed 01/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

15-cv-2812 JLS (JLB)

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

Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005)). “When determining whether ‘exceptional 

circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well 

as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of 

the legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th 

Cir.1983)). Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed 

together. Id. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

“A plaintiff that provides no evidence of his likelihood of success at trial fails to 

satisfy the first factor of the [exceptional circumstances] test.” Torbert v. Gore, No. 14-

cv-2991 BEN (NLS), 2016 WL 1399230, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2016). Here, Plaintiff 

offers no evidence to the effect that he has a likelihood of success on the merits. In addition, 

at this stage of the proceedings, there is very little before the Court regarding the merits of 

Plaintiff’s case, other than the assertions in Plaintiff’s complaint. As a result, it is difficult 

at this time for the Court to determine the likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits 

of his claim. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to satisfy the first 

“exceptional circumstances” factor that would support his request for appointment of 

counsel. 

B. Ability to Articulate Claims Pro Se

Plaintiff’s argues that circumstances exist for the appointment of counsel because he 

cannot prosecute his case effectively given his status as a state prisoner, his limited access 

to the law library, his lack of knowledge, education, and training about the law, his 

dyslexia, his indigent status, and the complexity of the case. (ECF No. 25.) As stated in 

the Court’s order on Plaintiff’s first motion requesting the appointment of counsel, Plaintiff 

fails to demonstrate an inability to represent himself beyond the ordinary burdens 

encountered by prisoners representing themselves pro se. Most of the above circumstances 

are common to most prisoners and do not establish exceptional circumstances supporting 

the appointment of counsel. See, e.g., Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335–36 (9th 

Case 3:15-cv-02812-JLS-JLB Document 26 Filed 01/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

15-cv-2812 JLS (JLB)

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

Cir. 1990) (denying appointment of counsel where plaintiff complained that he had limited 

access to law library and lacked a legal education). 

Second, although Plaintiff argues otherwise, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s 

complaint and finds that the issues involved in this case are not particularly complex. And, 

in any event, any purported complexity has not precluded Plaintiff from articulating his 

claims. Plaintiff’s filings to date are well-written and organized, and they demonstrate that 

Plaintiff is able to understand and articulate the essential facts supporting his claim. 

Plaintiff’s pleadings and other submissions to the Court have also demonstrated that 

Plaintiff has an adequate understanding of basic litigation procedure. Thus, the second 

“exceptional circumstances” factor also does not support Plaintiff’s request for 

appointment of counsel.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has not established the exceptional circumstances required for the 

appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

second motion requesting that he be appointed counsel (ECF No. 25) is DENIED. 

Dated: January 13, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-02812-JLS-JLB Document 26 Filed 01/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3