Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01301/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01301-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRI-DAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDALL YICK,

Defendant.

_____________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11-cv-01301 LJO GSA 

ORDER CONSTRUING DEFENDANT’S

DOCUMENT DATED AUGUST 12, 2011

TO BE AN ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL 

On August 5, 2011, Plaintiff Tri-Dam filed its complaint for permanent injunction and

other equitable relief against Defendant Randall Yick. (Doc. 1.) On August 15, 2011, Plaintiff

filed its proof of personal service of the summons, complaint and related documents upon

Defendant. (Doc. 5.) 

On August 15, 2011, Defendant’s document dated August 12, 2011, was filed with the

Court. This Court CONSTRUES the document to be, in part, an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. 

In the same document, Defendant requests the assistance of “a court appointed attorney or

legal assistan[t] to represent” him or guide him as he cannot afford to hire an attorney “due to

financial difficulties.” (Doc. 6.) Defendant’s request is DENIED for the following reasons.

1

Case 1:11-cv-01301-AWI-SMS Document 7 Filed 08/16/11 Page 1 of 3
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

First, Defendant’s request is denied because he is not suffering any risk to his personal

liberty. Plaintiff is suing Defendant with regard to issues surrounding certain real property

Defendant owns in Calaveras County. Therefore, Defendant has no right to the appointment of

counsel. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County, N.C., 452 U.S. 18, 25

(1981).

Next, Title 28 of the United States Code section 1915(e)(1) provides that “[t]he court may

request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” Nevertheless, “it is

well-established that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases.” United

States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp.

(In re Hedges ), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Nicholson v. Rushen, 767 F.2d

1426 (9th Cir. 1985). Appointment of counsel by the court is discretionary, not mandatory. 

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

Appointment of counsel may be made if a court finds that there are exceptional

circumstances after evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the party

to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved; the

factors must be viewed together. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). Here, there are no exceptional

circumstances present following this Court’s consideration of Defendant’s ability to articulate his

claims or defenses in light of the injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks. This matter does not appear to

be particularly complex and while at this stage of the proceedings a consideration of the

likelihood of success on the merits is premature, it does not appear the appointment of counsel is

warranted. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d at 1017. This Court does note that Plaintiff’s

complaint references previous litigation between Defendant and a neighboring landowner in state

court pertaining to some of the issues relevant in this proceeding. Plaintiff also notes the

appellate proceedings have concluded in that matter. (See Doc. 1, ¶¶ 29-31.)

2

Case 1:11-cv-01301-AWI-SMS Document 7 Filed 08/16/11 Page 2 of 3
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

Finally, the fact that Defendant might be better served with the assistance of counsel is

not the test. See Rand v. Roland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). In other words, while it

may be true that Defendant would benefit from having the assistance of counsel to “help with

paper filing” and ensure compliance with rules and applicable deadlines (see Doc. 6), the Court

does not consider such a benefit in its determination.

Defendant is cautioned that an individual representing himself without the assistance of

an attorney remains bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court’s Local Rules, and

all other applicable laws. See Local Rule 183. In conclusion, Defendant’s request for

appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 16, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

i70h38 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:11-cv-01301-AWI-SMS Document 7 Filed 08/16/11 Page 3 of 3