Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00355/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00355-1/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 07cv00355

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HUNT, Civil No. 07cv00355 BEN (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL [Doc. # 24]

v.

SAN DIEGO POLICE OFFICER SPEARS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Robert Hunt, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

Plaintiff has not made the showing required for appointment of counsel in civil cases. An

indigent’s right to appointed counsel has been recognized to exist “only where the litigant may lose his

physical liberty if he loses the litigation.” Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County,

N. C., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Appointment of counsel in proceedings in forma pauperis is governed by

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), which “confers on a district court the discretion to designate counsel to represent

an indigent civil litigant.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal citation

omitted). “The court may appoint counsel under section 1915(d) only under ‘exceptional

circumstances.’” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal citation omitted). “A

finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the

merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “Neither of these factors is dispositive and both

Case 3:07-cv-00355-BEN-CAB Document 26 Filed 10/15/07 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

1

 Plaintiff also alleged Defendants committed an assault against him in violation of California

Penal Code section 149. (First Amended Complaint at 5.) However, on the same day as this order, the

Court issued a Report and Recommendation which recommended the claim be dismissed without leave

to amend because this provision of the California Penal Code does not provide for a private right of

action. [See Doc. # 25.]

2 07cv00355

must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a particularly high likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff

alleges Defendants subjected him to physical, emotional, and mental abuse in violation of his civil rights

under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.1 (First Amended Complaint at 4-6.) In order to prevail

on these excessive force claims, Plaintiff will have to show each individual Defendant’s actions were

objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388, 396 (1989). 

At this point, Plaintiff relies only upon the allegations in his Complaint. The likelihood of success on

the merits is therefore unclear. 

In addition, Plaintiff has not shown a lack of ability to articulate his claims pro se. Plaintiff

argues his incarceration “will greatly limit his ability to litigate this case.” (Pl.’s Mot. for App’t of

Counsel at 6.) However, incarceration and the resulting limitations on the ability to litigate are common

in a § 1983 case. Moreover, Plaintiff’s previous filings with the Court, as well as the pending motion,

indicate Plaintiff is capable of presenting legal and factual arguments to the Court. 

Finally, courts should treat pro se litigants with great leniency. This rule is particularly important

in civil rights cases. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). 

Plaintiff’s papers will receive due consideration. 

Based on the above, this case does not present the extraordinary circumstances required for

appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 15, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00355-BEN-CAB Document 26 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 2