Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01016/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01016-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 - 08CV1016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK SCOTT

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv1016 JM(BLM)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

vs.

THE VESSEL ORION

Defendant.

On or about June 6, 2008 Plaintiff commenced this in rem action alleging that the vessel Orion

failed to compensate him for services rendered. Plaintiff also moves for leave of court to proceed in

forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel.

The Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff declares that he is not currently employed, has no significant assets, and receives

monthly disability payments. Accordingly, Plaintiff is an individual entitled to prosecute this action

without the prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. §1915.

The Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil action. 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). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, district courts are granted discretion to appoint

counsel for indigent persons 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

Case 3:08-cv-01016-JM-BLM Document 4 Filed 06/19/08 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

- 2 - 08CV1016

‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate [her] 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)).

Here, it appears that plaintiff has a sufficient grasp of his case, the legal issues involved, and

is able to adequately articulate the basis of his complaint. Under these circumstances, the Court denies

plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel because it is not warranted by the interests of justice.

LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 19, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:08-cv-01016-JM-BLM Document 4 Filed 06/19/08 Page 2 of 2