Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01084/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01084-1/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 - 11cv1084-JLS (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAY G KIMPEL, Civil No. 11-cv-1084-JLS (POR)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL

[ECF No. 13]

v.

I MARQUEZ, CDC Correctional Officer; D.

MARTINEZ, RJ Donovan State Prison; A

BUENROSTRO, RJ Donovan State Prison;

RICO, Correctional Officer, RJ Donovan State

Prison; and RINK, Lieutenant,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Jay Kimpel, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at RJ Donovan Correctional

Facility, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on a civil rights action filed under 28 U.S.C.

§1983. (ECF No. 1.) On September 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 

(ECF No. 13.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues the appointment of counsel is appropriate because he

has “only a sixth grade education and can barely read or write.” He claims to have limited access to

the law library and limited knowledge of the law. In addition, Plaintiff argues the issues presented

in his complaint are complex and counsel will be required to assist in discovery, present evidence

and cross-examine witnesses at trial. For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. 

“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution Trust

Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Thus, federal courts do

Case 3:11-cv-01084-JLS-PCL Document 14 Filed 09/26/11 Page 1 of 3
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 - 11cv1084-JLS (POR)

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). 

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

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823

(9th Cir. 1989). “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 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)).

In the absence of counsel, however, the procedures employed by the federal courts are highly

protective of a pro se litigant’s rights. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding pro

se complaint to less stringent standard)(per curiam). Where a plaintiff appears pro se in a civil

rights case, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff any benefit of the

doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). The rule of

liberal construction is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). 

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances at this time. 

First, Plaintiff has not shown how his limited education or access to the law library prevent him

from sufficiently prosecuting his lawsuit. Rather, Plaintiff’s Complaint enumerates specific causes

of action, demonstrates that Plaintiff has a good grasp of his case, and survived the Court’s sua

sponte screening, on the first attempt, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Second, there

are currently no substantive motions pending, and thus, a determination of the complexity of the

legal issues would be premature. Moreover, at this stage of the proceedings, there is no indication

that discovery is necessary. 

//

//

Case 3:11-cv-01084-JLS-PCL Document 14 Filed 09/26/11 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 11cv1084-JLS (POR)

Based thereon, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

without prejudice . 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 26, 2011

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: The Honorable Janis Sammartino

All parties

Case 3:11-cv-01084-JLS-PCL Document 14 Filed 09/26/11 Page 3 of 3