Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01337/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01337-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL MICHAEL MASON, Civil No. 11CV1337-JLS (BGS)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 12]

v.

D.J. SILVA,

Defendant.

Plaintiff once again requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil

action. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff argues that he needs an appointed attorney because he is indigent and

cannot afford his own counsel and does not have adequate time in the law library. See id.

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case, however, 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 11cv1337-JLS

Case 3:11-cv-01337-JLS-BGS Document 13 Filed 04/03/12 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

Plaintiff has thus far been able to articulate his claims. (Doc. No. 8.) Furthermore, it does not

appear that the legal issues involved are complex. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.3d 1328, 1331 (9th

Cir. 1986) (noting that, “If 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.”). 

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

nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley,

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 3, 2012

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

2 11cv1337-JLS

Case 3:11-cv-01337-JLS-BGS Document 13 Filed 04/03/12 Page 2 of 2