Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-04635/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-04635-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EDWIN JAY HUTCHINSON,

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY 

AUTHORITY; et al.,

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 13-4635 CW

ORDER DENYING 

MOTIONS FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL 

(Docket Nos. 72, 

140) 

Plaintiff, a state inmate who has filed a pro se civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, moves for the appointment of 

counsel. “[I]t is well-established that there is generally no 

constitutional right to counsel in civil cases.” United States v. 

Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court has the discretion to appoint 

volunteer counsel for “any person unable to afford counsel.” The 

discretionary appointment of counsel typically is reserved for 

cases involving “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 

Case 4:13-cv-04635-CW Document 172 Filed 03/30/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

legal issues involved.’ Neither of these factors is dispositive 

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

Here, exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of 

counsel are not evident. The request for appointment of counsel 

is DENIED. If, in the future, the Court concludes it is necessary 

to appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff, it shall do so on its 

own motion. 

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 72 and 140. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 30, 2016 CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:13-cv-04635-CW Document 172 Filed 03/30/16 Page 2 of 2