Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01494/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01494-1/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

1 10cv1494

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COVARSIA DILL, Civil No. 10cv1494-W (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 17]

v.

J. IVES, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January

5, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. [Doc. No. 17.] In support of his request,

Plaintiff contends that he is unable to afford counsel, and his imprisonment will limit his ability to

adequately litigate the case. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp.,

32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). District courts have discretion, however, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing

of exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v.

County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989). “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.” Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017

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

Case 3:10-cv-01494-W-KSC Document 19 Filed 01/11/11 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 10cv1494

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

is able to adequately articulate the basis of his complaint. In addition, while Plaintiff summarily states

that the issues involved in this case are complex, he has not shown a likelihood of success or that the

complexity of the case requires appointment of counsel. 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: January 11, 2011

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01494-W-KSC Document 19 Filed 01/11/11 Page 2 of 2