Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00408/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00408-0/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 The Court construes Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel as an

ex parte motion. 

08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JOHN DAUGHTERY, CDCR

#F-79985,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENNIS WILSON, San Diego Police

Officer; ESMERALDA TAGABAN, San

Diego Police Officer; SERGEANT

GRIFFIN; DETECTIVE LEMUS,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 13]

On April 21, 2008, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis with a Complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed an

ex parte motion1

 requesting assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1). Doc. No. 13 (“Pl.’s Mot.”). Plaintiff requests

appointment of counsel because he is disabled, indigent and

incarcerated. Id. at 4. He claims his incarceration prevents him from

accessing (1) “means to investigate or gather evidence including court

documents and witnesses” and (2) documents involving police personnel,

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 14 Filed 04/23/08 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 08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

which he contends are “protected by laws of anonymity and shielding.”

Id.

“There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983

action.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing

Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also

Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th

Cir. 1994) (“there is no absolute right to counsel in civil

proceedings”). 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) (“Appointment of

counsel under [28 U.S.C. § 1915] is discretionary, not mandatory”).

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.” Agyeman v.

Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). “A

finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking

assistance requires at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the

plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s

ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the

legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Plaintiff first requests the appointment of counsel because he

cannot afford to hire an attorney. Pl.’s Mot. at 4. While indigence is

one prerequisite to any request for appointment of counsel under section

1915(e)(1), Plaintiff must also plead facts which show he has an

insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issue involved and an

inadequate ability to articulate the factual basis of his claim.

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 14 Filed 04/23/08 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 08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103. Plaintiff has not made such a showing. In

fact, the district judge already has determined that Plaintiff’s pro se

Complaint alleges excessive force claims sufficient to survive the

initial screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and

has directed the U.S. Marshal to effect service on Plaintiff’s behalf.

See Doc. No. 3. Moreover, Plaintiff’s claims of excessive force against

San Diego Police Officers are not particularly “complex” or unique.

C.f. Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103.

Similarly, Plaintiff provides no explanation of how he is disabled

or in what way his alleged disability impacts his ability to articulate

his claims. Petitioner also provides no specific description of what

documents he believes are necessary to prove his case or why his present

state of incarceration would prevent his from serving written document

requests or subpoenas on Defendants in accordance with the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has

failed to demonstrate that he cannot adequately articulate his claims or

pursue his case without counsel. See Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court find that Plaintiff has not

alleged the requisite “exceptional circumstances” and hereby DENIES

Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 13].

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 23, 2008

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO: 

HONORABLE WILLIAM Q. HAYES

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 14 Filed 04/23/08 Page 3 of 3