Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01822/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01822-3/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 - 07cv1822

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TED DARNELL DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1822 JM(POR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

vs. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

O. ALVARADO, et al. 

Defendants.

On or about July 29, 2009 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (“Motion”) to

assist him in prosecuting his civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Constitution

provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services,

452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, district courts are granted discretion

to appoint counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “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 or her]

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 complaint. The complaint adequately sets forth the

factual basis for his claims. Further, the Motion is articulate, coherent, and demonstrates a

fundamental understanding of the issues. Under these circumstances, the Court denies Plaintiff’s

Case 3:07-cv-01822-JM-POR Document 35 Filed 08/07/09 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 - 07cv1822

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: August 6, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties

Case 3:07-cv-01822-JM-POR Document 35 Filed 08/07/09 Page 2 of 2