Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01883/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01883-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY WAYNE ERVIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT ROBERT JONES et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-01883-KJM-CKD (PS)

ORDER

(ECF Nos. 11, 12)

Presently before the court are pro se plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel and motion to 

clarify a previous order. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.) For the reasons stated below, the court DENIES 

plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel and instructs plaintiff that this matter is not stayed at this 

time. 

I. Legal Standard

Any successful application for appointment of counsel must comply with criteria set forth 

in Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1981). Before 

appointing counsel to a plaintiff, the court must consider (1) plaintiff’s financial resources, (2) the 

efforts already made by plaintiff to secure counsel, and (3) plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the 

merits. Id. at 1318. “The plaintiff has the burden of proof and must meet all three factors.”

Reddy v. Precyse Sols. LLC, 2013 WL 2603413, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2013) (citing Castner 

v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1421 (10th Cir.1992)). Appointment of counsel 

Case 2:19-cv-01883-KJM-CKD Document 13 Filed 01/31/20 Page 1 of 4
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

is not a matter of right. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F. 2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982). Moreover, 

“counsel may be designated under section 1915(d) only in ‘exceptional circumstances’. . . 

[which] requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of 

the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved.’” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal citations 

omitted). 

II. Analysis

Regarding the Bradshaw factors, because plaintiff paid the filing fee required in civil 

cases, he is not proceeding in forma pauperis, and plaintiff has provided no information about his 

financial status. Therefore, the the first factor, which relates to plaintiff’s financial condition, is 

unknown. Accordingly, plaintiff has not met his burden. However, even assuming plaintiff 

meets the financial requirements to have counsel appointed, the court would decline to do so due 

to the third factor.

As to the second Bradshaw factor, plaintiff provides a correspondence between himself 

and a law firm, and states that the firm later called him and told him they would not take his case 

at that time. (ECF No. 12 at 1.) While this is minimal effort to obtain counsel, the court finds 

plaintiff has satisfied his burden on this factor. 

Regarding the third Bradshaw factor, evaluating plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the 

merits, plaintiff makes no argument and therefore has not satisfied his burden. However, at this 

stage of litigation, without any defendant being served, the court is hesitant to find plaintiff’s 

complaint is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff is likely to face substantive motions to 

dismiss his deliberate indifference claim premised on medical malpractice. See Toguchi v. 

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that a “difference of medical opinion . . . 

[is] insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate indifference”). Accordingly, plaintiff 

has not satisfied the third Bradshaw factor. 

Turning to the Wilborn standard, plaintiff provides the court with no “exceptional 

circumstance” that would warrant counsel to be appointed. The “exceptional circumstances” 

standard is met through evaluation of the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of 

Case 2:19-cv-01883-KJM-CKD Document 13 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 4
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

3

plaintiffs to articulate their claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (quoting Weygtandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). As 

noted above, plaintiff has not satisfied the requirement that he is likely to succeed on the merits. 

Regarding the complexity of the legal issues involved, this case is still in its initial phase: 

No defendant has been served and there are no complex legal issues before the court. Plaintiff 

has been given simple instructions to serve defendants, which, as discussed below, plaintiff has 

failed to do. The court therefore does not find this matter to be so complex as to warrant the 

appointment of counsel.

In sum, plaintiff has not established his financial status, a likelihood of success on the 

merits, that his case is overly complex, or that he is unable to articulate his claims. Therefore, the 

court DENIES plaintiff’s request to appoint counsel at this time.1

Additionally, in response to plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 11), the court clarifies that this 

matter is not stayed at this time. 

Finally, the court instructs plaintiff that he was required to serve defendants in this matter 

within 90 days of the court’s order on September 19, 2019. (ECF No. 5.) The date to effectuate 

service has therefore passed. Sua sponte, the court grants plaintiff leave to serve defendants out 

of time. Plaintiff shall serve the named defendants within 30 days of this order. Within 10 days 

of service on each defendant plaintiff shall inform the court of the same. Plaintiff is again 

cautioned that failure to serve defendants may result in his case being dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4(m).

////

////

////

////

////

 

1 For the same reasons, plaintiff’s attachment to his motion to appoint counsel labeled “Reports 

Addressing Status Conference Matters” (ECF No. 12-2), which states his appointed counsel will 

address the information required in the status report is insufficient. If plaintiff does not obtain 

counsel in this matter he is required to provide this information to the court himself. 

Case 2:19-cv-01883-KJM-CKD Document 13 Filed 01/31/20 Page 3 of 4
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

4

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 12) is DENIED. 

2. Plaintiff is given 30 days from the date of this order to effectuate service on the 

named defendants in this matter. Plaintiff shall inform the court within 10 days from the 

date each defendant is served. 

Dated: January 31, 2020

Jr.1883.ervin.appoint

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01883-KJM-CKD Document 13 Filed 01/31/20 Page 4 of 4