Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01978/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01978-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAWANTA J. LAMBERT, 

CDCR #V-42105,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-1978 JLS

(MDD)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(ECF No. 43)

vs.

J. MARTISON; DOMINGO URIBE,

Jr.; D. DAVIS; J. SAIS; L.

CALDERON; and D. FOSTON,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Jawanta J. Lambert’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion

for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff contends that the complex nature

of his case, as well as limited access to legal materials or the help of other inmates, has

made it difficult for him to proceed pro se.

While there is no right to counsel in a civil action, a court may, under

“exceptional circumstances,” exercise its discretion and “request an attorney to

represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Palmer

v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). This discretion may be exercised

only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation

- 1 - 10cv1978

Case 3:10-cv-01978-JLS-RBB Document 44 Filed 09/20/13 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

of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the

[Plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal

issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d

952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). “Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must

be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (citing Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Applying these standards, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the

stringent standards required for an appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1). Plaintiff’s allegations in the present motion do not address, much less

establish, a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. And while the Court is

sympathetic to the difficulties prisoners face in preparing and filing legal

documents and conducting discovery, these considerations alone do not render the

legal issues themselves complex. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that discovery concerns and difficulty preparing

motions do not constitute complex legal issues). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion

for Appointment of Counsel must be DENIED at this time WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

However, the Court notes that, pursuant to General Order 596, which

adopted a Plan for the Representation of Pro se Litigants in Civil Cases, “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.” S.D. Cal.

General Order No. 596. Accordingly, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for

appointment of counsel at an appropriate time prior to commencement of trial.

///

///

///

///

///

- 2 - 10cv1978

Case 3:10-cv-01978-JLS-RBB Document 44 Filed 09/20/13 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

The Court further notes that Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants except for

Defendant L. Valenzuela were dismissed without prejudice; the case, however, remains

closed. (Order, ECF No. 36.) The Court informs Plaintiff that he may file an amended

complaint if he so desires.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 20, 2013

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 3 - 10cv1978

Case 3:10-cv-01978-JLS-RBB Document 44 Filed 09/20/13 Page 3 of 3