Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02097/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02097-5/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

18cv2097-GPC-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY VASQUEZ,

Plaintiff, 

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants. 

Case No.: 18-cv-2097-GPC-MDD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL 

[ECF No. 47]

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is currently incarcerated at in 

Salinas Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s first request for 

appointed counsel was denied without prejudice on March 14, 2019. (ECF 

No. 21). On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed his second request for appointed 

counsel which the Court denied on August 16, 2019. (ECF Nos. 42, 45). On

August 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document providing additional arguments to 

support his request for appointed counsel. (ECF No. 47). The Court 

Case 3:18-cv-02097-GPC-MDD Document 48 Filed 08/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2097-GPC-MDD

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

construes this document as a third request for appointed counsel. 

Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 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). 

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. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “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)).

As with Plaintiff’s previous motion, Plaintiff supports this request by 

arguing that his claims against one named defendant survived summary 

judgment, there is video evidence to support his claims, and he does not 

possess the required legal skills to properly examine witnesses or seek expert 

witnesses. (ECF No. 47). However, as this Court noted in denying Plaintiff’s 

previous requests for counsel, it appears that Plaintiff has a sufficient grasp 

of his case, the relevant evidence, the legal issues involved, and is able to 

adequately articulate the basis of his claims as demonstrated by Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. (See ECF Nos. 21, 45). Plaintiff’s pro se pleading survived initial 

screening and his claims against one Defendant survived an early summary 

judgment motion. However, the Court notes again that Plaintiff’s claims are 

not particularly complex, and although sufficient to survive screening, 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 

Case 3:18-cv-02097-GPC-MDD Document 48 Filed 08/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2097-GPC-MDD

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

Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to 

show the “exceptional circumstances” required for appointment of counsel 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and therefore DENIES without prejudice 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: August 22, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02097-GPC-MDD Document 48 Filed 08/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3