Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02669/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02669-0/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

GERALD WILSON,

CDCR #F-50712,

Case No. 10cv2669 WQH (BGS)

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR AND APPOINTING

PRO BONO COUNSEL PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)

(ECF No. 21)

vs.

C. DAVIS; E. FONTAN; I. BRAVO; 

M. COLLINS, Correctional Officers,

Defendants.

In this civil rights action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff, a prisoner

proceeding in pro se and currentlyincarcerated at Kern ValleyState Prison in Delano, California,

was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) on January 11,

2011 (ECF No. 3). Defendants filed an Answer on April 25, 2011 (ECF No. 9).

On February 6, 2012, after the close of discovery, Plaintiff filed a Motion for

Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 21). While there is no right to counsel in a civil action, a

court may under “exceptional circumstances” exercise its discretion and “request an attorney to

represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Palmer v. Valdez, 560

F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The court must consider both “‘the likelihood of success on the

S:\Hayes\orders\10cv2669-appt-counsel.wpd 1 10cv2669 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:10-cv-02669-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 04/13/12 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

merits as well as the ability of the [Plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th

Cir. 1983)). 

Applying these standards, the Court has found this case suitable for pro bono

representation pursuant to General Order 596, which adopted a Plan for the Representation of

Pro Bono Litigation in Civil Case filed in the Southern District of California. Thus, pursuant

to both 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and General Order 596, the Court has randomly selected a

volunteer attorney from the Court’s Pro Bono Panel to represent Plaintiff during the course of

all further proceedings before this Court. See S.D. Cal. General Order No. 596.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel(ECFNo. 21)isGRANTED.

The Court hereby APPOINTS Ellen N. Adler, of Morrison & Foerster, LLP, 12531 High Bluff

Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, California, 92130, as Pro Bono Counsel for Plaintiff. 

Pursuant to S.D.CAL.CIVLR 83.3(g)(2),Pro Bono Counsel shall file, within fourteen (14)

days of this Order, a formal written Notice of Substitution of Attorney signed by both Plaintiff

and his newly appointed counsel. Such substitution shall be considered approved by the Court

upon filing, and Pro Bono Counsel shall thereafter be considered attorney of record for Plaintiff

for all purposes during further proceedings before this Court. See S.D.CAL.CIVLR 83.3(g)(1),

(2).

The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve Ms. Adler with a copy of this

Order at the address listed above upon filing. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 83.3(f)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 13, 2012

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

S:\Hayes\orders\10cv2669-appt-counsel.wpd 2 10cv2669 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:10-cv-02669-WQH-BGS Document 22 Filed 04/13/12 Page 2 of 2