Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00788/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00788-1/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

Michael Hopkins,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. Bustos et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 15cv788 JLS (PCL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL (Doc. 33)

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 33.)

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). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts are granted discretion to

appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion may be exercised only under “exceptional

circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional

circumstances requires 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)).

1

Case 3:15-cv-00788-JLS-PCL Document 39 Filed 06/14/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

In his motion, Plaintiff argues that he is unable to afford counsel and that the issues are too

complex for him to handle. (Doc. 33, at 2.) He also states that he is developmentally disabled and is

mentally ill. (Doc. 33, at 5.) 

The court held a case management conference on February 2, 2016. At the conference, Plaintiff

was out of the hospital and in a different prison (CDCR Los Angeles County Lancaster). He was

represented by a “jailhouse lawyer” and appeared capable and ready to prosecute his case. Although

Plaintiff may be disabled in some way, he does not appear to be incompetent to prosecute his case. (See

Travalini v. People of California, 2006 WL 842435, at * 3 (E.D. Cal. March 28, 2006) (“Although

illiteracy may prohibit a defendant from understanding and appreciating written communications, it does

not, standing alone, inhibit a defendant who has no history of mental retardation (or other mental

illnesses that affect a person’s faculties) from understanding verbal communications. The Court agrees

with precedent from other circuit courts that hold that illiteracy does not invariably equate with legal

incompetence.”) Plaintiff has not given the Court any additional evidence that his disability has hindered

his ability to handle his case. Furthermore, at this stage in the litigation, the Court simply cannot make a

finding that Plaintiff’s claims have a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to warrant the

appointment of counsel. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for counsel without prejudice, as

neither the interests of justice nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time

under the circumstances laid out by Plaintiff in his motion. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th

Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

 Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 14, 2016

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

2

Case 3:15-cv-00788-JLS-PCL Document 39 Filed 06/14/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2