Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02239/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02239-0/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

18cv2239-DMS(BLM)

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

RAYMOND DEAN MYERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARLITA BASTO and R. ARIAS,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv2239-DMS(BLM)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

[ECF No. 22]

On January 15, 2019, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed a Motion requesting this Court to appoint counsel. ECF No. 22; see also ECF No. 10 (order 

granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis). In support of his Motion, Plaintiff alleges that 

he “has absolutely no law or litigation knowledge or experience,” and that his “situation includes 

complicated medical circumstances and terminology that he cannot adequately convey to the 

Court.” ECF No. 22 at 1. Plaintiff further states that he is “unable to afford counsel,” he has 

“very limited” access to the law library, and that “imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to 

litigate properly.” Id. at 1–2. Finally, Plaintiff argues that “this case will likely incur conflicting 

testimonies and . . . counsel would better enable Plaintiff to present evidence and cross examine 

witnesses.” Id. at 2. Having considered Plaintiff’s Motion and the applicable law, the Motion is 

DENIED for the reasons set forth below.

Case 3:18-cv-02239-DMS-BLM Document 23 Filed 01/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2239-DMS(BLM)

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

LEGAL STANDARD

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless an 

indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. 

Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts are granted 

discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman 

v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). A finding of exceptional 

circumstances demands at least “an evaluation of the likelihood of the 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. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 

1986)).

DISCUSSION

Thus far, Plaintiff has drafted and submitted several pleadings and motions without the 

assistance of counsel. See Dkt. In addition to the instant Motion, Plaintiff has submitted the 

following: a Complaint [ECF No. 1], a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2], General 

Allegations and Exhibits in Support of his Complaint [ECF No. 5], a Motion for Emergency Relief 

[ECF No. 7], a Motion for a Restraining Order [ECF No. 9], a Motion to Amend his Complaint 

[ECF No. 14], a Motion to Correct Errors of an Original Order [ECF No. 16], and a Motion for a 

Copied Set of Exhibits [ECF No. 19]. From the Court’s review of these documents, it is clear 

that Plaintiff is able to articulate the claims of his case. Additionally, there is no indication that 

the issues are overly complex. 

While it is too early for the Court to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the 

merits, Plaintiff fails to establish the requisite “exceptional circumstances” that would warrant 

appointment of counsel. A plaintiff is only entitled to appointed counsel if he can show “that 

because of the complexity of the claims he [is] unable to articulate his positions.” Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th 

Cir. 1998) (en banc); see also Taa v. Chase Home Fin., 2012 WL 507430, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 

15, 2012) (noting that plaintiffs’ lack of legal training and poverty did not constitute exceptional 

circumstances, as these are the types of difficulties many other litigants face in proceeding in 

Case 3:18-cv-02239-DMS-BLM Document 23 Filed 01/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2239-DMS(BLM)

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

pro se); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“If all that was required to establish successfully the 

complexity of the relevant issues was a demonstration of the need for development of further 

facts, practically all cases would involve complex issues.”); see also LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 

622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming a district court’s denial of request for appointment of counsel 

where pleadings demonstrated petitioner had “a good understanding of the issues and the ability 

to present forcefully and coherently his contentions”). Plaintiff has not established that this case 

is “exceptional” or that the issues in it are particularly complex.

Because Plaintiff failed to allege the requisite “exceptional circumstances,” it is not in the 

interest of justice to appoint counsel at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment 

of Counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/18/2019

Case 3:18-cv-02239-DMS-BLM Document 23 Filed 01/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3