Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02248/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02248-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

1

3:17-cv-02248-GPC-BGS

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

JANET PALMER-CARRI,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE 

GOVT AGENCIES; POLICE OF SAN 

DIEGO COUNTY; JERRY BROWN, 

Governor; OFFICE OF ATTORNEY 

GENERAL,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-02248-GPC-BGS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 4]

On November 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action pro se against the State of 

California and its agencies, the Police of San Diego County, Governor Jerry Brown, and 

the Office of the Attorney General. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has paid the filing fee for this 

action. (See id.) On November 15, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel in 

light of her inability to afford retained consel. (ECF No. 4.)

Generally, a civil plaintiff has no right to appointed counsel. See Hernandez v. 

Whiting, 881 F.2d 768, 770-71 (9th Cir. 1989). A district court, however, “may request

an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

Under the law of this circuit, court appointment of counsel requires a finding of 

Case 3:17-cv-02248-GPC-BGS Document 7 Filed 12/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:17-cv-02248-GPC-BGS

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

“exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). In 

order to assess whether such circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate both a 

petitioner’s (a) likelihood of success on the merits and (b) ability to articulate her claims 

in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. “Neither of these factors 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)). The Ninth Circuit has 

determined that not every difficulty a pro se plaintiff encounters in prosecuting her case 

is a complexity entitling her to counsel. 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 [the] development of further facts, practically all cases 

would involve complex legal issues. Thus, although Wilborn may have found it difficult 

to articulate his claims pro se, he has neither demonstrated a likelihood of success on the 

merits nor shown that the complexity of the issues involved was sufficient to require 

designation of counsel.” ) 

Here, at this time, based on the Complaint, the Court cannot determine whether 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of her claims. In addition, Plaintiff has not 

made a showing of her inability to articulate the basis of her claims in light of the 

complexities of the issues involved. 

Under these circumstances, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for appointment 

of counsel without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-02248-GPC-BGS Document 7 Filed 12/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2