Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05777/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05777-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY DILLINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05777-YGR (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED 

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL; AND GRANTING HIS REQUEST 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff has filed a renewed request for the appointment of counsel to represent him in this 

action. He also requests for an extension of time to file his opposition to Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment. Dkt. 54.

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may 

lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 

18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to 

counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 

(9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an 

evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to 

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at 1525; 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on 

a request for counsel under § 1915. See id. 

The Court has denied Plaintiff’s previously-filed motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 

14. At this time, the Court finds that exceptional circumstances entitling Plaintiff to court 

appointed counsel do not exist. The legal issues are not complex. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

Case 4:13-cv-05777-YGR Document 63 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

renewed request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is presently overdue. 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time in which to file his opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The time in which Plaintiff may file his opposition 

to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment will be extended up to and including May 15, 

2015. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after the date Plaintiff’s 

opposition is filed.

This Order terminates Docket No. 54.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

April 17, 2015

Case 4:13-cv-05777-YGR Document 63 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 2