Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00218/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00218-0/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

cal 

1

 This is Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel in this action. The first was filed

on June 6, 2007, [Doc. No. 10] which was denied on June 14, 2007 by this Court [Doc. No. 13].

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\1983\Thorns\Order.deny.appt.counsel.wpd 1 07cv218

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Bruce Thorns,

CDC #D-73211,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.07cv218 H (AJB)

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Appointment of Counsel 

[Doc. No. 40]

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at California State Prison-Sacramento (CSP-SAC”) in Represa,

California and proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this civil rights Complaint filed

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed on August 1, 2007, an Ex Parte Motion for Appointment of Counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) [Doc. No. 40].1

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order appointing counsel for him in this civil rights case based

upon the following arguments: 1) that he is unable to afford an attorney on his own; 2) the issued

involved in this case are complex and require discovery proceedings; 3) he has encountered difficulties

as a result of his incarceration in obtaining access to law books and legal materials; and 4) he has very

little legal experience and inadequate time to study legal materials. Plaintiff states that unless counsel is

appointed for him in this case, he is unsure he will be able to proceed further with his civil rights claims

Case 3:07-cv-00218-H-AJB Document 41 Filed 08/06/07 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\1983\Thorns\Order.deny.appt.counsel.wpd 2 07cv218

because his case is complex and a lawyer is needed to assist him in the gathering and presentation of

evidence. However, upon review Based upon Plaintiff’s application and a review of the pleadings in

this case, the Court concludes that there is no basis for appointment of counsel at this point in the

proceedings. 

“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp.

(In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Thus, federal courts do not have

the 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 Terrell

v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir.

1989). “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, this Court does not find that exceptional circumstances exist so as to justify an appointment of counsel. Despite the numerous factual and legal allegations contained in Plaintiff’s pleadings,

Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims with sufficient clarity to allow them to be addressed on

their merits. Plaintiff’s legal claims, and the factual bases for those claims in this case, are not so

complex as to require the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Court finds that “exceptional

circumstances” do not exist in this case so as to require the appointment of counsel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) at this stage of the proceedings. As such, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 6, 2007

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-00218-H-AJB Document 41 Filed 08/06/07 Page 2 of 2