Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02113/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02113-8/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL L. JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. ESPINOZA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02113-YGR (PR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

OF DENIAL OF APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

Plaintiff Gabriel L. Jordan, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Medical 

Facility, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was subjected 

to unconstitutionally excessive force by Defendants in the course of his arrest on May 24, 2012.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Ex Parte Request for Appointment of Counsel” (dkt. 75), 

which will be construed as his Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s denial of his request for 

appointment of counsel.

Plaintiff’s initial requests for the appointment of counsel were denied.1 He now requests

the Court to reconsider its denial of his requests for appointment of counsel. Such a request is

hereby DENIED. 

In his motion for the Court to reconsider its prior ruling and appoint counsel to represent 

him, Plaintiff proposes that the Court assign counsel for the following reasons: to assist Plaintiff in 

order to “properly prepare for the settlement conference”; and to “conduct extensive interviews 

with the transporting Emergency Medical Technicians “EMTs”, and the Emergency Room 

Physicians,” including “Plaintiff’s treating physician.” Dkt. 75 at 4-5.

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may 

lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 

18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to

 

1 On April 17, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s initial request for appointment of counsel. 

Dkt. 29. On July 22, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel. 

Dkt. 41.

Case 4:14-cv-02113-YGR Document 84 Filed 04/15/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

counsel in a section 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 

952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The Court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 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. See id. at 1525; 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on 

a request for counsel under section 1915. See id. 

The Court has recently conducted a careful review of all admissible evidence submitted in 

connection with Defendants’ previously-filed Motion for Summary Judgment. Taking into 

consideration this review, and Plaintiff's ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved, the Court finds that exceptional circumstances entitling 

Plaintiff to court appointed counsel do not exist at this time. Accordingly, the request that the 

Court reconsider its initial denial of Plaintiff’s requests for appointment of counsel is DENIED 

without prejudice to renewing his request if this action is not resolved after the upcoming 

settlement proceedings.2

This Order terminates Docket No. 75.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

 

2

The parties are scheduled to appear before Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas for settlement 

proceedings on August 15, 2016 at 11:00 am.

April 15, 2016

Case 4:14-cv-02113-YGR Document 84 Filed 04/15/16 Page 2 of 2