Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01269/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01269-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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 - 06cv1269

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY ROBERT LISBEY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV1269 JM(RBB)

DISCREPANCY ORDER:

ACCEPTING DOCUMENTS FOR

FILING; DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

GRANTING REQUEST FOR COPIES

vs.

HANSBURR, et al.,

Defendant.

On or about April 23, 2007 the court received from Plaintiff a (1) motion to appoint counsel;

(2) request for free copies of the docket in the present case; and (3) notice of change of address. The

complaint in the present action was dismissed on September 13, 2006 with 45 days leave to amend.

Plaintiff was removed the country on or about June 6, 2006 and has not filed an amended complaint

or otherwise prosecuted this action.

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. The Constitution provides no right

to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25

(1981). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, district courts are granted discretion to appoint

counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional circumstances.” 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 or her] 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

Case 3:06-cv-01269-JM-RBB Document 10 Filed 04/25/07 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 - 06cv1269

F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). Here, it appears that Petitioner has a sufficient grasp of his case,

the legal issues involved, and is able to adequately articulate the basis of his petition. 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).

In light of Plaintiff’s representation that he has not received previous filings from the court,

the Clerk of Court is instructed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of this order, a copy of the docket in

this case, and a copy of this court’s September 13, 2006 order dismissing the case.

Finally, the Clerk of Court is instructed to file the above identified motions in the docket and

to change Plaintiff’s address to that listed in the most recent filings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 25, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:06-cv-01269-JM-RBB Document 10 Filed 04/25/07 Page 2 of 2