Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00153/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00153-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAYON D. LIVELY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv153-LAB (MDD)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL 

[Doc. No. 32]

vs.

ROBERT TOVAR, et al.,

Defendants.

On February 3, 2012, Plaintiff in the above-entitled case filed a Motion to Appoint

Counsel. (Doc. No. 32). In his Motion, Plaintiff contends that he cannot afford counsel, the issues

in his case are complex, he has limited access to the prison law library, and he has limited

knowledge of the law. Id. Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel to assist him in asserting his

claims. 

“[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 v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d

- 1 - 11cv153-LAB (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-00153-LAB-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/08/12 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

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)).

The Court finds that there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify the

appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s claims are not complex, and he has been able to articulate

them sufficiently. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 8, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 2 - 11cv153-LAB (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-00153-LAB-MDD Document 33 Filed 02/08/12 Page 2 of 2