Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00317/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00317-0/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 07cv317 WQH (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL MARTIN HONORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN, as an individual and his/her

official capacity; DELGADO, Program

Sergeant, as an individual and his/her official

capacity; BENTLEY, Yard Sergeant, as an

individual and his/her official capacity; and

JACOBS, Correctional Officer, as an

individual and his/her official capacity,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv317 WQH (NLS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 16]

Plaintiff Darrell Martin Honore, proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, in which he alleges that various defendants violated his constitutional rights. On August

23, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. In the motion Plaintiff states that he has

tried to contact several attorneys regarding his case but has never received a response. He also states

that he does not have the funds to employ an attorney to represent him.

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. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452

U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is at the district court’s

discretion, and requires the court to make a finding of “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer,

935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991). Such a finding “requires an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of

Case 3:07-cv-00317-JLS-NLS Document 17 Filed 08/28/07 Page 1 of 2
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 07cv317 WQH (NLS)

success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate [his/her] claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved.’’” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997);

Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Neither of these issues is dispositive, and both should be viewed together before reaching a decision. Id.

Based on the current record the Court has no reason to believe that Plaintiff is incapable of

having a sufficient grasp of his case or the legal issues involved, or that Plaintiff might not be able to

adequately articulate and communicate the basis of his claims. Plaintiff has failed to plead facts

sufficient to show the “exceptional circumstances” required for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED

without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 28, 2007

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00317-JLS-NLS Document 17 Filed 08/28/07 Page 2 of 2