Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01044/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01044-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Tony Roberts, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. Beard et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No: 15cv1044-WQH-(RBM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL (Doc. 144.) 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 144.) 

Plaintiff requests counsel “to represent him at the evidentiary hearing to resolve 

disputed material facts of whether the prison improperly failed to process Plaintiff’s 

alleged grievances on April 2, 2014; June 23, 2014; and July 8, 2014.” (Doc. 144, at 1-

2.) Plaintiff argues that that counsel is necessary because “an evidentiary hearing 

would surely tax Mr. Roberts’ abilities.” (Doc. 144, at 2.) 

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case 

unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 147 Filed 10/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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 - 

Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25-26 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts are granted discretion to appoint counsel for 

indigent persons. Although federal courts do not have the authority “to make coercive 

appointments of counsel,” Mallard v. U.S. District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989), 

district Courts have the discretion to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil 

litigants upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. 

of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). “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.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 

1991) (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Moreover, in the Southern District of California, the District Judges have 

outlined the factors that a magistrate judge should consider in determining whether a 

case is appropriate for the appointment of pro bono counsel. (Pro Bono Plan, General 

Order No. 596, August 3, 2011.) The assigned judge should consider the following: 

1. the inability of the pro se party to retain counsel by other means; 

2. the potential merit of the claims as set forth in the pleadings; 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 147 Filed 10/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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 - 

3. the nature and complexity of the action, both factually and legally, including 

the need for factual investigation and evidentiary presentation at motions or 

trial; 

4. whether the pro se party has another case pending before this Court, and if 

so, whether counsel has been appointed in such case; 

5. the degree to which the ends of justice will be served by appointment of 

counsel, including the extent to which the Court may benefit from the 

appointment; and 

6. any other factors deemed appropriate. 

In addition, unless the Court determines based upon the above factors that 

counsel is not necessary, the Court may appoint counsel for purposes of trial as a 

matter of course in each prisoner civil rights case where summary judgment has been 

denied. (Pro Bono Plan, General Order No. 596, August 3, 2011.)

In this case, the Court has evaluated the likelihood of success of Plaintiff’s 

claims and Plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the 

legal issues involved. As shown in Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the 

record so far does not reflect sufficient compelling evidence that Plaintiff’s First 

Amendment rights were violated as alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. The purpose of 

having the evidentiary hearing regarding the issue of whether the existing and 

generally available administrative remedies were made effectively unavailable to 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 147 Filed 10/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 

Plaintiff will be to make credibility determinations of anyone with knowledge of 

Plaintiff’s thwarted attempts to use the administrative process. These credibility 

determinations will be fairly straightforward and will not necessarily require Plaintiff 

to be represented by counsel for justice to be served. Moreover, Plaintiff has filed 

multiple documents with the Court which have effectively articulated his legal 

positions. The Court thus concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated “exceptional 

circumstances” supporting the appointment of counsel at this stage in the proceedings. 

Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. 

Nevertheless, Plaintiff should make an attempt to retain pro bono counsel on his 

own accord. If unsuccessful, Plaintiff is welcome to renew his motion for appointment 

of counsel after the Court holds the November 14, 2018 hearing regarding Plaintiff’s 

motions to compel. The Court also reserves the right to sua sponte reconsider 

appointing counsel to Plaintiff after holding this hearing and reevaluating the situation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: October 26, 2018 

 

 ________________________ 

 Hon. Ruth Bermudez Montenegro 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 147 Filed 10/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4