Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02013/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02013-0/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 04cv2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEOPOLDO C. NAVARRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

VERNON J. BACH, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 04cv2013 J (AJB)

Order Denying Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel and 

Denying As Moot Plaintiff’s 

Request for Extension of Time

To Complete Discovery

[Doc. Nos. 59 and 61]

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed an action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment by prison officials. Plaintiff

argues that an appointment of counsel is required in this case based upon Plaintiff’s indigent status and

California Rule of Court 4.551(c)(2). 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. 

“[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.

Case 3:04-cv-02013-AJB Document 72 Filed 03/19/08 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\Navarro\04cv2013.Navarro.Order.Deny.Appt.Cnsl.wpd2 04cv2013

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. Plaintiff has been able to set forth the factual and legal basis for his claims in a

straightforward and intelligent manner 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 there do not exist “exceptional

circumstances” requiring the appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) at this stage of

the proceedings. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff also moves the Court for an extension of time to complete discovery and pretrial

motions. Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on October 17,

2007, and has not indicated in his moving papers that any additional discovery is necessary with regard

to the currently pending motion for summary judgment. As such, the Court hereby DENIES AS MOOT

the Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 18, 2008

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:04-cv-02013-AJB Document 72 Filed 03/19/08 Page 2 of 2