Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02097/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02097-4/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

18cv2097-GPC-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY VASQUEZ,

Plaintiff, 

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants. 

Case No.: 18-cv-2097-GPC-MDD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL 

[ECF No. 42]

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is currently incarcerated at in 

Salinas Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s first request for

appointed counsel was denied without prejudice on March 14, 2019. (ECF 

No. 21). On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed his second request for 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 42). 

Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 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). 

District 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). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires 

Case 3:18-cv-02097-GPC-MDD Document 45 Filed 08/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv2097-GPC-MDD

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

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, Plaintiff supports his Motion by stating that he has been 

transferred to different cells multiple times which causes delay or difficulty 

receiving mail, his claims against one named defendant survived summary 

judgment, and it is difficult to conduct discovery while incarcerated without 

the assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 42 at 2-3). However, as this Court noted 

in denying Plaintiff’s first request for counsel, it appears that Plaintiff has a 

sufficient grasp of his case, the legal issues involved, and is able to 

adequately articulate the basis of his claims as demonstrated by Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. (See ECF No. 21). Plaintiff’s pro se pleading survived initial 

screening and his claims against one Defendant survived an early summary 

judgment motion. However, the Court notes again that Plaintiff’s claims are 

not particularly complex, and although sufficient to survive screening, 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 

Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to 

show the “exceptional circumstances” required for appointment of counsel 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and therefore DENIES without prejudice 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: August 16, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02097-GPC-MDD Document 45 Filed 08/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2