Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00110/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00110-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

DANIEL JESTER, Civil No. 12CV110 BTM (PCL)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

vs. APPOINT COUNSEL

VIMAL SINGH, Warden,

Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

On March 17, 2012, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, constructively filed

a Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc.

6.) On June 14, 2012, Petitioner filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 12.) For

the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

In this Motion, Petitioner requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in

prosecuting this civil action. The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in

a civil case, however, unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the

-1- 12cv110 BTM (PCL)

Case 3:12-cv-00110-BTM-PCL Document 14 Filed 06/15/12 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

litigation. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts are granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent

persons. This discretion may be exercised only 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 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)).

Here, Petitioner does not set forth any arguments that he is entitled to appointed

counsel. (Doc. 12, at 1.) Petitioner has been able to articulate sufficiently his legal claims,

and he has not convinced this Court of the likelihood of success on the merits of his case.

Thus, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s request without prejudice, as neither the interests of

justice nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v.

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 15, 2012 

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

CC: ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD

-2- 12cv110 BTM (PCL)

Case 3:12-cv-00110-BTM-PCL Document 14 Filed 06/15/12 Page 2 of 2