Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00890/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00890-2/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

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

BRIAN JENNINGS, Civil

No. 15cv890 LAB (BGS)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 14. ]

v.

SAN DIEGO JAIL HEALTH CARE

PROVIDERS, JUSTIN POLANCO M.D. 

and DOCTOR GOLDSTEIN, et al.,

Defendants.

On November 30, 2015, Plaintiff Brian Jennings, a prisoner proceeding pro se and

In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) in this civil rights action, filed a motion to appoint counsel.

(ECF No. 14.) He requests appointment of counsel because he is indigent and cannot

afford to hire a lawyer. Id. at p.1.

“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), 32

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

proceedings.”) (citation omitted). 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

1 15cv890 LAB (BGS)

Case 3:15-cv-00890-LAB-BGS Document 15 Filed 12/30/15 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

“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).

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request without prejudice, as neither the interests of

justice nor exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel at this time.

LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Plaintiff

has thus far been able to articulate his claims, as the Court found that Plaintiff’s

complaint contains allegations sufficient to survive the sua sponte screening required by

28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). (See ECF No. 4.) Moreover, it does not appear

that the legal issues presented by Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth

Amendment claims are so complex that counsel is warranted at this stage of the

proceedings. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.3d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting

that, “[i]f all that was required to establish successfully the complexity of the relevant

issues was a demonstration of the need for development of further facts, practically all

cases would involve complex legal issues.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is

DENIED without prejudice. 

DATED: December 30, 2015

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

2 15cv890 LAB (BGS)

Case 3:15-cv-00890-LAB-BGS Document 15 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 2