Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01317/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01317-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 10-cv-01317-CW (PR) 

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket no. 49)

On October 16, 2014, Plaintiff, a state inmate who has filed 

a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed a 

motion for appointment of counsel which was denied in an Order 

dated October 29, 2014. Doc. no. 44.

Plaintiff now files a second motion for the appointment of 

counsel on the ground that the legal issues are “extremely 

complex.” He also argues that “counsel will be better suited to 

work with Ashker counsel for purposes of moving our cases along 

with [sic] bringing delays to this court.” Defendants have been 

served, but have not answered the complaint.

“[I]t is well-established that there is generally no 

constitutional right to counsel in civil cases.” United States v. 

Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court has the discretion to appoint 

volunteer counsel for “any person unable to afford counsel.” The 

discretionary appointment of counsel typically is reserved for 

Case 4:10-cv-01317-CW Document 60 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

cases involving “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 

935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “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 factors is dispositive 

and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. 

In its October 29, 2014 Order, the Court stated: 

Here, exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of 

counsel are not evident. Contrary to Plaintiff’s 

contentions, his claim is not complex and, based upon his 

filings with the Court, he appears to be capable of 

articulating his arguments. Accordingly, his motion for 

appointment of counsel is denied. 

October 29, 2014 Order at 5.

For the same reasons, Plaintiff’s second motion for 

appointment of counsel is denied.

This Order terminates Docket no. 49.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2015

__________________________________

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-01317-CW Document 60 Filed 01/15/15 Page 2 of 2