Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01690/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01690-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

STACY THRASHER, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv1690-LAB (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS

COUNSEL; AND

ORDER DENYING

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Stacy Thrasher’s attorney, Julie Kiehne-Lamkin, filed a noticed motion to be

relieved as counsel. The motion attests to a breakdown of communications and cooperation

between attorney and client. According to the motion, Ms. Kiehne-Lamkin needs to move out

of California to care for her elderly mother, and a disagreement has arisen over this. Ms.

Thrasher also, pro se, submitted a letter to the Court which has been accepted for filing. The

letter shows Ms. Thrasher agrees she and her attorney cannot work together, and she would

like her attorney to withdraw. The Court therefore deems the motion to withdraw (Docket no.

15) unopposed, and GRANTS it. 

In addition to consenting to the withdrawal, Ms. Thrasher’s letter asks the Court to

appoint counsel for her at public expense so that she can effectively prosecute this civil

action, in which she seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

- 1 - 12cv1690

Case 3:12-cv-01690-LAB-NLS Document 21 Filed 12/05/12 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

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case, unless

the indigent litigant may lose her physical liberty if she loses the litigation, Lassiter v. Dept.

of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), which is not the case here. But under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1), the Court has discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion

is to be exercised only 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 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. (citation and

quotation marks omitted).

Ms. Thrasher’s letter brief lacks most of the information the Court would need to make

such an evaluation, although it is clear she can articulate her claims on her own if need be.

The letter brief also suggests Ms. Thrasher has not attempted to obtain counsel to replace

Ms. Kiehne-Lamkin, such as through legal aid organizations or by contacting attorneys who

might represent her on a contingency basis. 

Because it does not appear the required “exceptional circumstances” are present, the

request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Ms. Thrasher is reminded that, unless and

until she obtains qualified counsel who makes an appearance for her in this case, she is

responsible for litigating this case herself, which includes complying with the Civil Local

Rules for this District. See Civil Local Rule 83.11 (setting forth requirements for persons

appearing without an attorney). See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9 Cir. 1987)

th

(“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 5, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv1690

Case 3:12-cv-01690-LAB-NLS Document 21 Filed 12/05/12 Page 2 of 2