Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01599/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01599-1/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

1 07cv1599 LAB (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON RUSH,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGE J. GIURBINO; DAVE KHATRI,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.07cv1599 LAB (NLS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 10]

Plaintiff Jason Rush, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in

which he alleges that various defendants violated his constitutional rights. On January 16, 2008,

Plaintiff filed a motion (1) objecting to Judge Stormes’ order extending the time for Defendants to

respond to the complaint; (2) for appointment of counsel; and (3) for entry of default against defendant

Khatri and a finding of contempt against his attorney. This order addresses only the second request in

Plaintiff’s motion; the district judge will address the remaining two requests. Plaintiff asks the Court to

appoint counsel for him because he says he has no formal training in law or federal court procedures and

cannot adequately or effectively represent himself.

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless an indigent

litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452

U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is at the district court’s

discretion, and requires the court to make a finding of “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer,

935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991). Such a finding “requires an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of

Case 3:07-cv-01599-LAB-NLS Document 11 Filed 01/24/08 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

2 07cv1599 LAB (NLS)

success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate [his/her] claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved.’’” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997);

Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Neither of these issues is dispositive, and both should be viewed together before reaching a decision. Id.

Based on the current record the Court has no reason to believe that Plaintiff is incapable of

having a sufficient grasp of his case or the legal issues involved, or that Plaintiff might not be able to

adequately articulate and communicate the basis of his claims. 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).

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED

without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 24, 2008

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01599-LAB-NLS Document 11 Filed 01/24/08 Page 2 of 2