Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01084/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01084-2/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

- 1 - 11cv1084-JLS (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAY G KIMPEL, Civil No. 11-cv-1084-JLS (POR)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL

[ECF No. 54]

v.

I MARQUEZ, CDC Correctional Officer; D.

MARTINEZ, RJ Donovan State Prison; A

BUENROSTRO, RJ Donovan State Prison;

RICO, Correctional Officer, RJ Donovan State

Prison; and RINK, Lieutenant,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Jay Kimpel, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at RJ Donovan Correctional

Facility, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on a civil rights action filed under 28 U.S.C.

§1983. (ECF No. 1.) On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 

(ECF No. 54.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues the appointment of counsel is appropriate because he

has limited access to the law library and the materials necessary to litigate this action. For the

reasons set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. 

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

Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). 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). 

Case 3:11-cv-01084-JLS-PCL Document 55 Filed 03/22/12 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

- 2 - 11cv1084-JLS (POR)

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. See

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823

(9th Cir. 1989). “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. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

In the absence of counsel, however, the procedures employed by the federal courts are highly

protective of a pro se litigant’s rights. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding pro

se complaint to less stringent standard)(per curiam). Where a plaintiff appears pro se in a civil

rights case, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff any benefit of the

doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). The rule of

liberal construction is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances at this time. Upon a review of the

pleadings, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately prosecuted his lawsuit. Plaintiff’s Complaint

survived the initial screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and Plaintiff

served the Complaint on all named Defendants. His numerous filings suggest Plaintiff understands

the facts and legal issues of the case. Furthermore, Plaintiff filed an Opposition and Sur-reply to

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. At present, no further briefing is required of Plaintiff. Based

thereon, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel without

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 22, 2012

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: The Honorable Janis Sammartino

All parties

Case 3:11-cv-01084-JLS-PCL Document 55 Filed 03/22/12 Page 2 of 2