Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06719/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06719-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TARAH JOY JOHNSON et. al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ) 

et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1: 04 CV F 04-6719 AWI DLB

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Document 14)

On May 6, 2005, Defendant Joseph S. Nieto filed an Ex Parte Application for

Appointment of Counsel in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant

states that he is currently involved in the criminal action that initiated this civil suit and has

exhausted his financial resources such that he is unable to pay for legal counsel in this civil

action. He argues that this civil rights action involves complex issues and he will be unable to

proceed further without experienced legal representation. Defendant submits a state court

financial statement evidencing his “current financial status” and pleads for “financial assistance.” 

 As Defendant recognizes, there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointment of

counsel in a civil action. See Ray v. Robinson, 640 F.2d 474, 477 (3rd Cir. 1981) (citing Peterson

v. Nadler, 452 U.S. F.2d 754, 757 (8th Cir.1971)); see also Mallard v. United States District

Case 1:04-cv-06719-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 05/20/05 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

Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 109 S.Ct. 1814 (1989). Only under

exceptional circumstances may a district court appoint counsel to represent an indigent civil

litigant. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). A finding of

exceptional circumstances requires an “evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits

[and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

legal issues involved.” See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted). To obtain counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the moving party must make a threshold

showing that he sought counsel, has been unable to obtain it, and the claim is not frivolous. See

Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2nd Cir. 1986). A court has authority to appoint

counsel when it is necessary to avoid fundamental unfairness. See Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d

885, 886 (7th Cir. 1981).

In the present case, this Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Review of the complaint does not suggest this case is extraordinary or overly complex. Even if it

is assumed that Defendant is not well-versed in the law and that the allegations against him are

serious which, if proved, may entitled the Plaintiffs to a large monetary award against him, his

case is not exceptional. Defendant fails to demonstrate an attempt and inability to obtain

counsel. Failure to appoint counsel will not result in “fundamental unfairness.” Defendant has

failed to substantiate the criteria for appointment of counsel. Defendant’s motion for

appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06719-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 2