Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01464/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01464-2/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 - 10cv1464-MMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DOUGLAS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-1464-MMA (BGS)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL

vs.

MICHAEL SMELOSKY, Warden; et al.,

Defendants.

On June 8, 2011, Plaintiff Robert Douglas, a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No.

13.) This is Plaintiff’s second request to appoint counsel. (See Doc. No. 3.) On August 27,

2010, the Court denied Plaintiff’s first request. (Doc. No. 4.) For the reasons set forth below,

the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s current motion for appointment of

counsel. 

Plaintiff argues the Court should appoint him counsel because he is indigent and unable

to afford to retain the services of private counsel, the complaint involves allegations of

deliberate indifference and violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, the complexities of

the issues raise the possibility that expert witnesses may have to be called and extensive

discovery conducted, Plaintiff is ill-equipped to match seasoned litigators if this case goes to

trial, an appointed counsel would better protect Plaintiff’s interests in any cross-examination

and presentation of law, he is a prisoner suing prison officials and will be stymied in any effort

Case 3:10-cv-01464-GPC-BGS Document 15 Filed 06/22/11 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

- 2 - 10cv1464-MMA

to interview defense witnesses or obtain discovery from the prison, and he will be playing on

an uneven playing field without counsel. (Doc. No. 13.) 

“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) (“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.”) (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). 

Districts 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 Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.

2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. “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.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,

1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request without prejudice, as neither the interests of justice

nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley,

827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. The Court previously denied

Plaintiff’s request and nothing has substantially changed in this case since that time to change

the Court’s analysis. Plaintiff has thus far been able to articulate his claims, as the Court

found that Plaintiff’s complaint contains allegations sufficient to survive the sua sponte

screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). (See Doc. No. 4 at 4.) Although

currently facing a motion to dismiss and Report and Recommendation to grant the motion to

dismiss, the Court notes that the two defendants who have appeared in the action did not move

to dismiss the entire complaint, and therefore some claims as articulated by Plaintiff will be

Case 3:10-cv-01464-GPC-BGS Document 15 Filed 06/22/11 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

- 3 - 10cv1464-MMA

going forward. 

Any pro se litigant “would be better served with the assistance of counsel.” Rand, 113

F.3d at 1525 (citing Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331). Nonetheless, so long as a pro se litigant, like

Plaintiff in this case, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the

matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of counsel do

not exist. Id. (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court

denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well have fared betterparticularly in the realms of discovery and the securing of expert testimony.”); accord Palmer

v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s

arguments regarding his ability to obtain discovery, the potential need for experts, and his

comparative ability to cross-examine witnesses are not exceptional circumstances warranting

the appointment of counsel at this time. Most of Plaintiff’s arguments are not based on the

complexity of the legal issues involved but rather on the general difficulty of litigating pro se.

See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.3d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that, “If all that was

required to establish successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a demonstration

of the need for development of further facts, practically all cases would involve complex legal

issues.”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 22, 2011

_________________________________

BERNARD G. SKOMAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01464-GPC-BGS Document 15 Filed 06/22/11 Page 3 of 3