Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01794/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01794-3/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

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

JONATHAN AYALA,

CDCR #F-25736,

Civil

No.

3:14-cv-1794-GPC-JLB

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL

[ECF No. 35]

vs.

W. FERMON; W.L. MONTGOMERY,

Defendants.

On August 11, 2015, Plaintiff Jonathan Ayala (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,

filed a letter “[r]equesting counsel.” (ECF No. 35.)The Court construes this as a motion

for appointment of counsel. This is Plaintiff’s second such motion. (See ECF No. 16.)

This is a civil rights action where Plaintiff alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based

on allegations that Defendant W. Fermon, a prison guard, shot Plaintiff. (ECF No. 8.)

Generally, litigants have no right to counsel in civil actions. See Storseth v. Spellman,

654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). However, the Court may appoint counsel for

indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) in “exceptional

-1- 14cv1794 GPC (JLB)

Case 3:14-cv-01794-GPC-JLB Document 36 Filed 08/12/15 PageID.<pageID> 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

circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004),

cert. denied sub nom. Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005). In determining whether

“exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the

merits” as well as “the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of

the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderson, 789 F.2d 1328,

1331 (9th Cir.1986) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “Neither of these

factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision on

request of counsel under section 1915(d).” Id.

Plaintiff states that he “seeks assistance with the very complex proceedings that

have arised [sic]” and that he “cannot grasp the legal meaning set upon now.” (ECF No.

35.) However, the Court has previously reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and found that

the issues in this case are not complex, and the case has not significantly changed since

that time. (See ECF No. 17.) Accordingly, the Court finds that, based on the record

before it, there do not exist exceptional circumstances that warrant the appointment of

counsel and thus DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

counsel. (ECF No. 35.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 12, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

-2- 14cv1794 GPC (JLB)

Case 3:14-cv-01794-GPC-JLB Document 36 Filed 08/12/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2