Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00096/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00096-0/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 07cv0096

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 JOSEPH ARIAS, JR., Civil No. 07cv0096-JM (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 8]

v.

D.W. BELL; L. SCRIBNER; J.G. CARPIO;

NEWMAN; DR. CHAN; ROWE; and VITELA,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May

31, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel. In the request, Plaintiff indicates he is

unable to afford counsel, and he needs professional assistance to protect his interests in this matter. For

the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

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

32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). 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); 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.” Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017

Case 3:07-cv-00096-JM-CAB Document 21 Filed 07/13/07 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 07cv0096

(quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Here, it appears that Plaintiff has a sufficient grasp of his case and the legal issues involved, and

is able to adequately articulate the basis of his complaint. In addition, Plaintiff has not shown a

likelihood of success or that the complexity of the case requires appointment of counsel. Under these

circumstances, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, because it is not

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 13, 2007

HON. NITA L. STORMES

U.S. Magistrate Judge

for CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00096-JM-CAB Document 21 Filed 07/13/07 Page 2 of 2