Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01759/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01759-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

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

HAMID ASGARI,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17-CV-1759-WQH-BGS

ORDER

v.

IMMIGRATION OF PHOENIX,

IMMIGRATION OF CALIFORNIA,

HOMELAND SECURITY (AZ),

POLICE OF PHOENIX, and FBI(AZ).

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On August 31, 2017, Plaintiff Hamid Asgari, proceeding pro se, commenced this

action by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Request for

Appointment of Counsel . (ECF Nos. 1, 2). Plaintiff “complain[s] about more than

6000 serious crimes against immigration of phoenix, immigration of California,

homeland security (Az.), police of Phoenix, [and] FBI (AZ).” ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff

alleges that “[m]ore than 6000 officers spied on [him] as a taxi passenger.” Id. at 3. 

Plaintiff seems to allege that the “crimes” that these officers committed was making

Plaintiff “an instrument in a plan [and] their subject and laboratory m[ouse] . . . contrary

to human dignity and the asylum law and human rights.” Id. 

“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),

- 1 - 17cv1759-WQH

Case 3:17-cv-01759-WQH-BGS Document 7 Filed 11/16/17 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

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

proceedings.”) (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 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). Even where a pro se plaintiff has difficulty articulating his or her claims,

“exceptional circumstances” are not present if the plaintiff “has neither demonstrated

a likelihood of success on the merits nor shown that the complexity of the issues

involved was sufficient to require designation of counsel.” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

The Court has evaluated the likelihood of success of Plaintiff’s claims and

Plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims. While Plaintiff has difficulty articulating his

claims, he “has neither demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits nor shown

that the complexity of the issues involved was sufficient to require designation of

counsel.” Id. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Appointment for Counsel (ECF

No. 2) is DENIED.

DATED: November 16, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 17cv1759-WQH

Case 3:17-cv-01759-WQH-BGS Document 7 Filed 11/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2