Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02457/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02457-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOANG MINH TRAN, Civil No. 10-2457-BTM(WVG)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL 

(Doc. No. 29)

v.

WILLIAM D. GORE, Sheriff, et al., 

Defendants.

Plaintiff Hoang Minh Tran, a former state prisoner, is proceeding pro se on a civil rights action

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion Requesting the Court

Appoint a Pro Bono Counsel Under Extraordinary Circumstances of Mental and Physical Hardship. 

This is Plaintiff’s third request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff argues the appointment of counsel

is appropriate because he is “under heavy psychotropic medications,” has “problems walking,” is

schizophrenic, is unable to afford counsel, and English is not his first language. 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). 

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

- 1 - 10cv464-DMS (DHB)

Case 3:10-cv-02457-BTM-WVG Document 30 Filed 09/19/12 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

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. KarimPanahi 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). 

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances. Plaintiff has not shown

how his alleged medical conditions prevent him from sufficiently prosecuting his lawsuit. Rather,

Plaintiff’s numerous filings demonstrate he has a good grasp of his case and the legal issues involved. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment

of Counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 19, 2012

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 2 - 10cv464-DMS (DHB)

Case 3:10-cv-02457-BTM-WVG Document 30 Filed 09/19/12 Page 2 of 2