Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02439/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02439-1/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

09cv2439-LAB (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERMELINDO OLEA, CDCR #AA-5972,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09cv2439-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 14]

On July 21, 2010, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, moved this Court to appoint

counsel. ECF No. 14. In support of his motion, Plaintiff states that he “[doesn’t] know the law

in order to respond by way of documents.” Id. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is

DENIED. 

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)).

Case 3:09-cv-02439-LAB-BLM Document 15 Filed 07/28/10 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 09cv2439-LAB (BLM)

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

assistance of counsel. In addition to the instant motion, he has submitted a complaint (ECF No.

1), a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), a first amended complaint (ECF No. 8),

and a motion for extension of time to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 11).

From the Court’s review of these documents, it is apparent that Plaintiff is able to

articulate the claims of his case. Further, Plaintiff does not demonstrate a likelihood of success

on the merits such that his case should be classified as an “exceptional circumstance[].”

Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103; see also Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Because Plaintiff has not

alleged the requisite “exceptional circumstances” at this time, the Court therefore DENIES

without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 28, 2010

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02439-LAB-BLM Document 15 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 2