Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

Brandon Meeks,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. Nunez, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 13cv973-GPC-BGS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

THIRD MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 114.) Based 

on the reasoning below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. 

I. Background

On April 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Defendants 

for constitutional violations for an incident on April 25, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) On October 

15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 17.) On November 5, 

2013, Magistrate Judge Skomal denied Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 21.) 

On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed another motion to appoint counsel. (ECF 

No. 56.) In that motion, Plaintiff sought appointment of counsel to assist in conducting

discovery and claimed to have a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(“ADA”) which makes it difficult for him to read, write and understand materials in the 

case. (Id.) Judge Curiel denied Plaintiff’s motion for counsel on October 6, 2014. (ECF 

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 116 Filed 12/11/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

No. 62.) In that order, Judge Curiel noted that Plaintiff provided no evidence to support 

his disability or the nature of his disability. (Id. at 3:19-21.) 

Plaintiff filed the instant motion, his third request for appointment of counsel, on 

November 30, 2015. (ECF No. 114). 

II. Plaintiff’s Request

In support of his request for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff submits a declaration 

wherein he states that he cannot afford to hire a lawyer. (ECF No. 114 at 5, ¶ 1.) He also 

states that he is limited in his ability to litigate his case due to his imprisonment, and his 

case will likely involve substantial investigation and discovery. (Id. at ¶ 2.) He states 

that the issues in his case are complex, and a lawyer would help him to: (1) apply the law 

properly in briefs and before the court (id. at ¶ 3), (2) present evidence and cross examine

opposing witnessess (id. at ¶ 4). Plaintiff again states that he has a disability under the

ADA, which substantially limits his understanding of the legal process and legal 

materials needed to litigate his case. (Id. at ¶ 6.) He alleges that his access to the law 

library has been impeded and obstructed under false pretences by prison staff and the 

United States District Court. (Id. at ¶ 7.) The rest of Plaintiff’s declaration alleges events 

not raised in the Complaint, and are therefore irrelevant to the determination of the 

instant motion.1 

III. Standard

“There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.”

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Storseth v. Spellman,

654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In

re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[T]here is no absolute right to

counsel in civil proceedings.”) (citation omitted). Federal courts do not have the

 

1 Plaintiff claims that his physical access to the law library and materials have been impeded and 

unlawfully obstructed under false pretenses by various entities or persons. (ECF No. 115 at 6-8.) To the 

extent Plaintiff may or may not have additional claims, he has to bring those claims in a separate action 

after he properly exhausts his administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 116 Filed 12/11/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

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 Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390

F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. “A finding of the

exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least an

evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an

evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity

of the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

IV. Discussion

Plaintiff’s arguments are no different than his prior requests for appointment of 

counsel. Plaintiff states that he cannot afford to hire a lawyer (ECF No. 114 ¶ 1), he 

cannot conduct an investigation and discovery (id. at ¶ 2), the case involves complex

legal issues (id. at ¶ 3), and his access to the law library and legal rescources is limited

(id. at ¶7). He made these exact arguments in his first request for appointment of 

counsel, which this Court denied on November 5, 2013. (See ECF No. 21.) As before, 

the Court finds that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional circumstances warrant 

the appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 

1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. 

Plaintiff also argues that he has a disability under the ADA, which substantially 

limits his understanding of the legal process and legal materials needed to litigate his case

(ECF No. 114 at ¶ 6). Plaintiff made this argument in his second request for appointment 

of counsel (ECF No. 56), which Judge Curiel analyzed as a motion for reconsideration. 

(ECF No. 62.) In his Order, Judge Curiel noted that other than “general allegations that 

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 116 Filed 12/11/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

he has a disability under the ADA, Plaintiff does not provide any evidence to support his

disability or the nature of his disability.” (Id. at 3:19-21.) Plaintiff’s current declaration 

again states that he has a “mental impairment-disorder,” but lacks evidence or 

explanation as to what the mental impairment is, and how it impacts his ability to litigate 

his case. However, an examination of the docket indicates that Plaintiff has participated

in the discovery process, the meet and confer process, and has filed over nineteen

documents with the Court. (See e.g., ECF Nos. 17, 23, 31, 33, 36, 38, 50, 56, 58, 61, 63, 

72, 74, 80, 83, 88, 90, 94, 100.) The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Appoint Counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 11, 2015

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 116 Filed 12/11/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4