Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00289/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00289-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 22:3777 Investigation of accident or injury giving rise to a claim

---

1

18-CV-289 JLS (KSC)

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

ELLA M. PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-289 JLS (KSC)

ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF Nos. 2, 3)

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Ella M. Phillips’s Motion to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), (“IFP Mot.,” ECF No. 2), and Motion for Appointment of 

Counsel, (“Counsel Mot.,” ECF No. 3).

IFP MOTION

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 

prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A 

federal court may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of 

Case 3:18-cv-00289-JLS-KSC Document 4 Filed 02/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-289 JLS (KSC)

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

fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that he is 

unable to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In the present case, Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit indicating her average

monthly income is $3,612.80, and she expects to earn $3,689.60 next month. (IFP Mot. 

1.) Plaintiff’s monthly expenses are $3,575.50, and she owns a home with a value of 

$400,000. (Id. at 3–5.) In sum, Plaintiff’s income exceeds her expenses and she is not 

without assets. Plaintiff has not demonstrated she is unable to pay the requisite filing fee. 

Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP.

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel because she can no longer afford to pay 

the attorney she retained to assist her in this case. (Counsel Mot. 3.)

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 Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district 

courts have the discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion, however, 

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 

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.” Id.

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

The Court finds Plaintiff has not satisfied the standards for appointment of counsel 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). First, Plaintiff’s Complaint has not yet been served or 

answered, so the likelihood of Plaintiff’s success on the merits in this case is therefore not 

yet clear at the early stage of the litigation. Second, Plaintiff has not demonstrated an 

inability to articulate her claims thus far. She states she was assisted by an attorney when 

attempting to settle with Defendant, and has only recently filed her Complaint. Plaintiff 

has successfully filed a Complaint against Defendant, along with the two present Motions. 

Case 3:18-cv-00289-JLS-KSC Document 4 Filed 02/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-289 JLS (KSC)

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

Therefore, the Court finds that neither the interests of justice nor any exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time and DENIES Plaintiff's motion, 

(ECF No. 3). This denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE should Plaintiff later be able to 

make the requisite showing of exceptional circumstances.

CONCLUSION

In sum, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, (ECF No. 2). To 

proceed with his case, Plaintiff may, within thirty days of the date on which this Order is 

electronically docketed, either (1) pay the $400 filing fee for civil cases, or (2) file a new 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Counsel, (ECF No. 3). Should circumstances change, Plaintiff may be permitted to file 

another Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00289-JLS-KSC Document 4 Filed 02/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3