Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05864/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05864-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

ISAAC RIGGS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

R.T.C. GROUNDS, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 13-5864 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO APPOINT COUNSEL

This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a prisoner. Plaintiff has filed a motion to

appoint counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't

of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and although district courts may "request" that

counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, as plaintiff is here, see 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that does not give the courts the power to make "coercive

appointments of counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an

indigent litigant only in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires an

evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the

plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has presented his claims

adequately, and the issues are not complex. Therefore, the motion to appoint counsel

(Docket No. 47) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2015. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.13\Riggs5864.counsel.wpd

Case 4:13-cv-05864-PJH Document 48 Filed 03/06/15 Page 1 of 1