Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01558/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01558-0/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 - 02cv460-BEN(WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO URIARTE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1558-W (WMc)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)

[Doc. No. 45]

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with a civil rights Complaint

[Doc. No. 1] filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and currently incarcerated at Ironwood State

Correctional Facility, has submitted a motion in which he requests that the Court appoint

counsel for him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) [Doc. No. 45].

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

Trust Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Thus,

federal courts do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard

v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v.

$292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Districts 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

Case 3:06-cv-01558-CAB-KSC Document 56 Filed 11/23/07 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 - 02cv460-BEN(WMc)

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.’” 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 claims. In fact, Plaintiff’s pro se pleading

has survived the initial screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and the

Court’s docket reflects that Plaintiff has effected service Complaint to which Defendants have

filed a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No.47]. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff has

failed to plead facts sufficient to show the “exceptional circumstances” required for

appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and therefore DENIES without

prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)

[Doc. No. 45]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 23, 2007

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-01558-CAB-KSC Document 56 Filed 11/23/07 Page 2 of 2