Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02571/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02571-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERTO JOSE DEL MURO, BOP

#40467-198,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv2571 JM (WMc)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

vs. [ DOC. NO. 85]

FERNANDO A. ARRIOLA, ROBERT E.

McFADDEN, HARRELL WATTS, J.

VILLANSENOR,

Defendants.

On July 16, 2012, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a third motion for

appointment of counsel in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. No. 85.] In his

civil rights complaint, Plaintiff alleges deliberate medical indifference under the Eighth Amendment.

[Second Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 6.] Plaintiff has filed a renewed motion for appointment of

counsel stating in various affidavits filed with the Court that he cannot speak or write well in English,

and (2) is unfamiliar with the law. [ECF. Nos. 85, 87, 95, 97, and 99.] 

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services,

452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). The Court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent a person

proceeding in forma pauperis who is unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). However, such

a request may only be made under section 1915 in “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer,

935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991)(citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

1986)). A determination of exceptional circumstances requires the Court’s consideration of: (1) the

likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the Plaintiff to state his claims pro se in light

- 1 - 09cv2571 JM (WMc)

Case 3:09-cv-02571-JM-WMC Document 104 Filed 08/16/12 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

of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir.

1997). Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact the pro se litigant would be better served with the

assistance of counsel require a finding of exceptional circumstances. Id. Both of the exceptional

circumstances factors must be considered together before reaching a decision and neither is

dispositive. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525; Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017; Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

The Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances exist in the instant case. 

Plaintiff’s likelihood of success in demonstrating deliberate indifference is low in light of the fact that

inadequate treatment due to “mere medical malpractice” or even gross negligence, does not amount

to a constitutional violation. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Wood v. Housewright, 900

F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). Moreover, a difference of opinion between the prisoner and his

doctors does not constitute deliberate indifference. Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.

1996). In addition, plaintiff has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to adequately present his

arguments to the Court. The exceptional circumstances factors do not favor a request for appointment

of counsel at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 16, 2012

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S.District Court

- 2 - 09cv2571 JM (WMc)

Case 3:09-cv-02571-JM-WMC Document 104 Filed 08/16/12 Page 2 of 2