Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01498/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01498-1/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

- 1 - 08cv1498

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVY KELVIN POUGH

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv1498 JM(RBB) 

ORDER DENYING SECOND

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

vs.

ALMAGER, V.M.; et al., 

Defendants.

On or about April 8, 2009 Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Appointment of Counsel

(“Motion”) to assist him in prosecuting his civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

On February 3, 2009 the court denied Plaintiff’s first request for appointment of counsel on the ground

that such appointment was not warranted by the interests of justice. Plaintiff now renews his motion

for appointment of counsel, arguing that he is taking antidepressant medication and therefore

appointment of counsel is warranted. The court denies Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.

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 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Case 3:08-cv-01498-JM-RBB Document 24 Filed 05/04/09 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 - 08cv1498

Here, upon review of the documents submitted by Plaintiff, including the Third Amended

Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff has a sufficient grasp of his case, the legal issues involved, and is

able to adequately articulate the basis of his complaint. The complaint adequately sets forth a factual

basis for his claims. Further, the documents filed by Plaintiff are articulate, coherent, and demonstrate

a fundamental understanding of the issues. The fact that Plaintiff is taking antidepressant medications

does not alter this court’s determinations. Plaintiff fails to establish that his mental condition is such

that he is incapable or even severely handicapped in prosecuting this action in propria persona. Under

these circumstances, the Court denies Plaintiff’s second 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 4, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties

Case 3:08-cv-01498-JM-RBB Document 24 Filed 05/04/09 Page 2 of 2