Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01715/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01715-3/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 

13-cv-01715-WQH-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Michael Lashon Robinson, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

H. Ramos, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 13-cv-01715-WQH-JLB 

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion 

Requesting the Appointment of 

Counsel 

[ECF No. 47] 

 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting the appointment of counsel (ECF 

No. 47). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s request for counsel in conjunction with the case 

record, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to meet the criteria for the Court to appoint 

him counsel. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in §1983 cases. 

Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). “However, a court may under 

‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants.” Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (§1983 action), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1282 

Case 3:13-cv-01715-WQH-JLB Document 50 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

13-cv-01715-WQH-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

(2010). “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must 

consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to 

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id. 

(quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1983)). 

First, Plaintiff offers no argument to the effect that he has a likelihood of success 

on the merits. Arguably, “it is too early to determine the likelihood of success on the 

merits” given that “it is not certain whether” Plaintiff’s amended complaint will survive 

Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss and anticipated motion for summary judgment. 

See Garcia v. Smith, No. 10cv1187-AJB-RBB, 2012 WL 2499003, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 

27, 2012) (citations omitted). Therefore, the first “exceptional circumstances” factor 

does not support Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. 

Second, Plaintiff argues exceptional circumstances exist for the appointment of 

counsel because he cannot prosecute his case effectively given his status as an inmate, 

limited education, and relapses related to a prior mental illness. (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff 

fails to demonstrate an inability to represent himself beyond the ordinary burdens 

encountered by prisoners representing themselves pro se. And, although Plaintiff claims 

to suffer from mental illness-related relapses, Plaintiff’s filings to date are well-written 

and demonstrate that he is able understand and articulate the essential facts supporting his 

claims. Thus, at least at this initial pleading stage, the Court finds Plaintiff has 

demonstrated and an adequate understanding of the relevant facts as well as the relatively 

Case 3:13-cv-01715-WQH-JLB Document 50 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

13-cv-01715-WQH-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

straightforward legal issues involved. Therefore, the second “exceptional circumstances” 

factor also does not support Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff’s request for counsel is denied. 

Dated: May 13, 2015 

Case 3:13-cv-01715-WQH-JLB Document 50 Filed 05/13/15 Page 3 of 3