Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02420/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02420-5/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

06cv2420-WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TEDDY LEROY WILSON, Jr., CDCR

#78443,

Plaintiff,

v.

ISMAEL BRIZYELA, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06cv2420-WQH (BLM)

ORDER DENYING THIRD MOTION

REQUESTING ASSISTANCE OF

COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 37]

On September 25, 2007, Plaintiff filed his third request for

assistance of counsel. The district judge denied his first request on

July 10, 2007, finding that Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate the

requisite “exceptional circumstances” to justify appointment of counsel.

Doc. No. 22. This Court denied his second request on the same grounds

on August 9, 2007. Doc. No. 33. Specifically, this Court concluded

that Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that he had been denied access

to legal materials, as he claimed, and therefore determined that

Plaintiff had not alleged the requisite “exceptional circumstances.”

Id. 

///

Case 3:06-cv-02420-WQH-BLM Document 39 Filed 10/03/07 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 06cv2420-WQH (BLM)

In the instant request, Plaintiff once again contends that he has

been denied access to legal materials. Doc. No. 37. He presents

evidence showing that the prison library has been closed for months and

explains that the prison library did not reopen until the day before he

was released from custody. Id. The residential treatment facility at

which he now resides does not have a library and he is not allowed to

leave the facility. Id. Plaintiff submitted a letter from the

executive director of the facility, which confirms that Plaintiff

entered the program on September 19, 2007, and will not be allowed to

leave the facility for personal reasons (such as to go to a law library)

for the first sixty days. Id.

As explained in the district judge’s order and this Court’s prior

order, “[t]here is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a §

1983 action.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997)

(citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)); see

also Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363

(9th Cir. 1994) (“there is no absolute right to counsel in civil

proceedings”). Thus, federal courts do 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) (“Appointment of

counsel under [28 U.S.C. § 1915] is discretionary, not mandatory”).

District 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.” Agyeman v.

Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). “A

finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking

assistance requires at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the

Case 3:06-cv-02420-WQH-BLM Document 39 Filed 10/03/07 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 06cv2420-WQH (BLM)

plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s

ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the

legal issues involved.’” Id. at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon,

789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Plaintiff has not argued that he is unable to articulate his

claims, other than to the extent he claims he has been deprived of

access to legal materials, and the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s filings

confirms that he is able to articulate his claims. Moreover, to

alleviate the access issue, this Court has, by separate order, granted

Plaintiff an extension of time in which to file his opposition so that

he may utilize a law library after the conclusion of the initial sixty

day period of confinement at the residential treatment facility. Thus,

the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege the requisite

“exceptional circumstances.” Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES

Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Assistance of Counsel [Doc. No. 37].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 3, 2007

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO: 

HONORABLE WILLIAM Q. HAYES

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-02420-WQH-BLM Document 39 Filed 10/03/07 Page 3 of 3