Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00892/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00892-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL E. BLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA COAST CREDIT UNION;

formerly First Future Credit Union and all

consortium members and affiliates also

including Solomon, Grindle and Winetringer,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.11cv0892 AJB (POR)

ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 3)

On April 26, 2011, Michael E. Bland , a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Request For

Appointment of Counsel Under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000(e)(5)(f)(1) [Doc. No. 3]

of case number 3:11-cv-00892-AJB-POR to this Court. Plaintiff submitted a declaration in support of a

motion to appoint counsel to the Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s declaration requesting the appointment of counsel is

insufficient to appoint the Plaintiff counsel in this civil proceeding. There is no constitutional right to be

represented by counsel in a civil proceeding. See U.S. v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996);

Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). Although 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) confers the

Court with discretion to request counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant, the Courts have limited

such discretion to exceptional circumstances. Aldable v. Aldable, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980).

A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both 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

Case 3:11-cv-00892-AJB-POR Document 4 Filed 09/29/11 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

2

the legal issues involved. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Requests for

appointment of counsel are only rarely granted and only when exceptional circumstances exist. United

States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 799-800 (9th Cir. 1986). Petitoner has demonstrated the

ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.

The Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel fails to meet the exceptional circumstances standard

for the following reasons:

• Plaintiff’s spouse earns an income of $2500.00 per month.

• Plaintiff’s debts and monthly bills are listed as only being rent at $1000.00 per month.

• Plaintiff owns property valued at $5250.00.

• Plaintiff has made minimal effort to find counsel to represent the claim.

It is under the Court's discretion to grant or deny a motion to appoint counsel based on the

Plaintiff’s claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). In light of this information, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

the Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED. IF PLAINTIFF CHOOSES TO FILE

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING HIS POVERTY, HE MUST ATTACH A COPY

OF THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 29, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00892-AJB-POR Document 4 Filed 09/29/11 Page 2 of 2