Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02599/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02599-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICOLE CHAKER, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2599-GPC(BGS)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Dkt. No. 52.]

vs.

ROBERT ADAMS, an individual;

Officer HERZIG, an individual; CITY

OF SAN DIEGO, a government entity;

and DOES 1-50, inclusive

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.

Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to assist her in prosecuting this civil

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

Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9thCir. 1994) (citation omitted). 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.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v.

County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989). “To show exceptional

circumstances the litigant must demonstrate the likelihood of success and complexity

of the legal issues involved.” Burns, 883 F.2d at 823 (citation omitted); Hedges, 32

F.3d at 1363; Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990). Neither the

- 1 - [Case # for Footer ]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 53 Filed 09/19/13 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

likelihood of success nor the complexity of the case are dispositive; both must be

considered. Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331

(9th Cir. 1986). 

When the complaint was originally filed on December 17, 2010, Plaintiff was

represented by counsel. On August 3, 2012, the Court issued an order denying

Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as to Defendants Adams and Herzig

and entered judgment in favor of Defendants Adams and Herzig on the claim for

wrongful arrest. (Dkt. No. 26.) On August 24, 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion

to withdraw as attorney for Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 28.) On October 9, 2012, the case was

transferred to the undersigned judge. (Dkt. No. 37.) On October 10, 2012, the Court

granted the motion to withdraw as counsel and the Court set a status hearing on

December 14, 2012. (Dkt. No. 38.) Pursuant to Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to continue

the status hearing, the Court continued the status hearing to March 15, 2013. (Dkt. No.

41.) At the March 15, 2013 hearing, Plaintiff had not yet obtained counsel and

requested additional time. (Dkt. No. 42.) The Court stayed the case in order for

Plaintiff to obtain counsel. (Id.) Another status hearing was held on May 17, 2013 and

the Court continued the stay pending Plaintiff’s evaluation of her disability. (Dkt. No. 

48.) On September 13, 2013, the Court held another status conference. (Dkt. No. 51.) 

At the hearing, the Court lifted the stay and referred the case for settlement with the

Magistrate Judge and set a pretrial conference hearing date on January 17, 2014. (Id.) 

Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel. 

Plaintiff argues that good cause exists to appoint counsel because she is disabled,

unable to afford an attorney, has no legal training and the legal issues are complex. 

Plaintiff alleges she is “totally disabled, including significant issues with eye sight, use

of a crutch, inability to use hands with full range of motion on a consistent basis as

required to use the law library.” (Dkt. No. 52 at 2.)

In this case, the Court is unable to determine whether she has a likelihood of

success on the merits; however, while Plaintiff contends she is “totally disabled,”

- 2 - [Case # for Footer ]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 53 Filed 09/19/13 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

Plaintiff filed a well drafted motion for appointment of counsel using legal analysis

based on caselaw and facts. The facts of her case are not complex and it appears that

she has the ability to articulate her claims. Under these circumstances, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel because it is not warranted by

the interests of justice. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 19, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - [Case # for Footer ]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 53 Filed 09/19/13 Page 3 of 3