Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01037/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01037-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY ROSSER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANCHEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 10-CV-1037-JAH (JMA)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL AND TO REOPEN AND

EXTEND DISCOVERY PERIOD [Doc.

No. 110] 

On May 31, 2012, Plaintiff Larry Rosser filed an ex parte motion requesting the

appointment of counsel and to reopen and extend the discovery period. Doc. No. 110. 

The basis for both requests appears to be that Plaintiff has encountered difficulties in

obtaining discovery. As such, Plaintiff seeks counsel “to at least conduct and effect

discovery.” Id. at 1. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

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

Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). District

courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to appoint counsel

for indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” See 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 petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

10cv1037

Case 3:10-cv-01037-JAH-JMA Document 113 Filed 06/04/12 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

involved.’ Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together

before reaching a decision.’” Id. (citations omitted).

Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate the factual and legal

bases of his claim with sufficient clarity, and to serve and conduct discovery. The facts

alleged in his First Amended Complaint are not complex. Based on the information

currently before the Court, it is clear that Plaintiff has the competence necessary to

pursue his case. Without more, this Court cannot conclude that there are “exceptional

circumstances” which would warrant the appointment of counsel in Plaintiff’s case. Nor

has Plaintiff submitted anything which would suggest he is likely to succeed on the

merits or that it would be in the interests of justice for counsel to be appointed in his

case. Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

counsel. 

Furthermore, while Plaintiff has set forth various difficulties he has encountered

in discovery, he has set forth no explanation as to why fact discovery should be

reopened nor as to what further discovery he would conduct if the fact discovery period

were reopened. As Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to reopen fact discovery,

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to reopen and extend the discovery period.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 4, 2012

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

2 10cv1037

Case 3:10-cv-01037-JAH-JMA Document 113 Filed 06/04/12 Page 2 of 2