Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02445/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02445-2/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-02445-LAB-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

James John McBride,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. Servantes, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02445-LAB-JLB

Order Denying Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel

[ECF No. 27]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting the appointment of counsel (ECF 

No. 27). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion in conjunction with the case record, the Court 

concludes that Plaintiff fails to meet the criteria for the Court to appoint him counsel. 

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

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, a court may under 

‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants.” Palmer v. Valdez, 

560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (§1983 action), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1282 (2010). 

“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)).

First, for the reasons stated in this Court’s August 12, 2016 Report and 

Recommendation, Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits as the record demonstrates 

Case 3:15-cv-02445-LAB-JLB Document 28 Filed 09/14/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

15-cv-02445-LAB-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

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing this action 

as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. (See ECF No. 21.) Therefore, the first “exceptional 

circumstances” factor does not support Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel.

Second, Plaintiff argues circumstances exist for the appointment of counsel because 

he cannot prosecute his case effectively given he is indigent, has limited access to the law 

library at Mule Creek State Prison, and believes his case is complex. (ECF No. 27 at 1-2.) 

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

encountered by prisoners representing themselves pro se.

1

 And, although Plaintiff argues 

this case is complex, Plaintiff’s filings to date are well-written and demonstrate that he is 

able understand and articulate the essential facts supporting his claims. Thus, the Court 

finds Plaintiff has demonstrated and an adequate understanding of the relevant facts as well 

as the legal issues involved. Therefore, the second “exceptional circumstances” factor also 

does not support Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel.

In conclusion, Plaintiff’s motion requesting the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 

27) is DENIED.

Dated: September 14, 2016

 

1 Cf. Morris v. Barr, No. 10cv2642-AJB-BGS, 2011 WL 3859711, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2011) 

(holding “Plaintiff’s arguments regarding his ability to obtain discovery, the potential need for experts, 

and his ability to obtain discovery and conduct depositions are not exceptional circumstances warranting 

the appointment of counsel at this time.”). 

Case 3:15-cv-02445-LAB-JLB Document 28 Filed 09/14/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2