Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01924/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01924-3/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 

16-cv-1924-LAB (DHB) 

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 

EARL WARNER, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

P. VELARDI, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 16-cv-1924-LAB (DHB) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF No. 

40] 

On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel nunc pro 

tunc to February 7, 2018. (ECF No. 40.) Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, argues that appointment is appropriate because this case involves substantial and 

complex legal and factual questions. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff also argues that he is unable to 

properly investigate and litigate his case while he is incarcerated. (Id. at 3-5) 

Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 

F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Districts courts have discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing 

of exceptional circumstances. Id; see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 

1991). “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must 

Case 3:16-cv-01924-LAB-RNB Document 41 Filed 02/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

16-cv-1924-LAB (DHB) 

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

consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner 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)). “Neither of these 

considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Id. (citing Wilborn v. 

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Here, Plaintiff has litigated this case for a year and a half without assistance of 

counsel. In that time, Plaintiff has demonstrated a more than sufficient ability to articulate 

his claims and understand the arguments, as shown by his amended complaint, various 

motions, and memorandum in support of his current request. (See ECF Nos. 26, 28, 33, 40 

at 3-5, 6-9.) Although the legal issues in this case are not complex, Plaintiff’s difficulty to 

examine medical experts, prison hospital staff, and fellow inmates has made prosecuting 

the case somewhat more complicated. (Id. at 6-9.) However, Plaintiff’s filings and the 

docket demonstrate his ability to distinguish his claims against the defendants and to apply 

relevant law to the facts. (Id.) Thus, Plaintiff has demonstrated the ability to articulate his 

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

Further, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 

Plaintiff’s claims have not yet survived a motion for summary judgment on the merits. See 

Garcia v. Smith, No. 10cv1187 AJB(RBB), 2012 WL 2499003, at *4 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 

2012) (denying motion to appoint counsel, finding that although three of the plaintiff’s 

claims survived a motion to dismiss, “it is too early to determine the likelihood of success 

on the merits,” and “[w]ithout more, it is not certain whether any of [the plaintiff’s] causes 

of action will survive summary judgment”). Here, Plaintiff requests appointment of 

counsel simply to assist him in discovery and present his claim at trial, if reached, in order 

to raise his credibility before a yet-to-be-empaneled jury. (See ECF No. 40 at 6-9.) No 

summary judgment pleadings have been filed in this case yet. Nonetheless, Plaintiff is in 

no different position than many pro se prisoner litigants. Accordingly, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated the “exceptional circumstances” required for the Court to 

appoint counsel. 

Case 3:16-cv-01924-LAB-RNB Document 41 Filed 02/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

16-cv-1924-LAB (DHB) 

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 light of Plaintiff’s demonstrated ability to articulate his claims and failure to 

demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits at this stage, Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 12, 2018 

Case 3:16-cv-01924-LAB-RNB Document 41 Filed 02/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3