Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00999/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00999-3/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 - 06-CV-999 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUDE P. NWANDU,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06-CV-999 MMA (WMc)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

[Doc. No. 108]

(2) NOTING REFERRAL TO SAN

DIEGO VOLUNTEER LAWYERS

PROGRAM PER LOCAL RULE

83.8

vs.

SERGEANT V. BACH, et al.,

Defendant.

On May 5, 2006, Plaintiff Jude P. Nwandu, a prisoner currently incarcerated at Ironwood State

Prison, filed this civil rights action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc.

No. 1.] The Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, and granted

the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. No.4.] On October 10, 2006, Defendants filed a

Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. No. 13.] On September 28, 2007, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation as Modified, dismissing Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim without prejudice,

denying Defendants’ request for qualified immunity without prejudice, and granting in part the motion

to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds. [Doc. No. 35.] On October 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed an

Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 36.] Plaintiff then sought leave to file a Second Amended

Complaint, which this Court granted. [Doc. No. 78.] The Second Amended Complaint is the

Case 3:06-cv-00999-WMC Document 117 Filed 10/20/10 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

- 2 - 06-CV-999 

operative pleading. [Doc. No. 80.] On November 9, 2008, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment. [Doc. No. 83.] The Court, adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,

Granted in Part and Denied in Part the Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. No. 104.] Plaintiff’s

claims for violations of his Eighth Amendment rights to be free from the use of excessive force and

to be free from deliberate indifference to his medical needs, having withstood Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment, are set to be heard at trial. Plaintiff has filed the instant second motion

requesting that counsel be appointed for him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). [Doc. No. 108.]

I. Standard for Appointment of Counsel per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)

“There 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). 

District 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 of King, 883 F.2d 819, 824 (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)).

Plaintiff repeats his request that this Court appoint counsel because, inter alia, his case has

survived summary judgment, and the balance of the parties’ abilities to litigate the case tips in favor

of Defendants because defense counsel is trained and experienced in the law. See Pl.’s Mem. P.&A.

at 1-3. The Court finds, however, that Plaintiff does appear to have a sufficient grasp of his case as

well as the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. He has already articulated the basis

for, and has pointed to evidence in the record in support of, his Eighth Amendment claims sufficiently

to withstand the initial screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, Defendants’ Motion

Case 3:06-cv-00999-WMC Document 117 Filed 10/20/10 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

- 3 - 06-CV-999 

to Dismiss, as well as Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. No. 104.] Thus, because

Plaintiff cannot satisfy the stringent standards required for an appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1), Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel must be DENIED without prejudice. 

However, Plaintiff has articulated that he anticipates some difficulties in preparing and

presenting his case at trial, which are not derived from the complexity of the issues involved. See

Pl.’s Mem. P.&A. at 4-6. In light of Plaintiff’s concerns, and because the Court has already found

that the interests of justice would surely be served were Plaintiff represented by counsel throughout

the final pre-trial preparations and the trial itself, the Court notes for the record that it has contacted

the San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program and is in the process of submitting Plaintiff’s case for

referral pursuant to S.D. CAL. CIV.LR 83.8. Plaintiff is hereby cautioned that this referral does not

guarantee that attorney assistance will necessarily be offered or made available to him; this Order

merely clarifies that a discretionary request has been made and that the Volunteer Lawyer Program

is currently in the process of soliciting and/or acquiring possible pro bono counsel for him.

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to show the

“exceptional circumstances” required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and therefore DENIES without

prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 108] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1). 

However, Plaintiff’s case has been and is hereby REFERRED to the San Diego Volunteer

Lawyer Program pursuant to S.D. CAL. CIVLR 83.8(a) for purposes of investigating the potential for

pro bono representation on Plaintiff’s behalf.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2010

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00999-WMC Document 117 Filed 10/20/10 Page 3 of 3