Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00084/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00084-0/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 

16cv84-JLS(BLM) 

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 

PEDRO REYES, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., DR. ROGELIO 

ORTEGA, AND RAY MADDEN, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv84-JLS(BLM) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

SECOND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL 

[ECF No. 32] 

 On July 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR 

THE APPOINTMET [sic] OF COUNSEL BASED PRIOR ARGUMENT AND A RECENT THREAT TO AN 

INMATE ASSISTANT” that was accepted by the Court on discrepancy on August 2, 2016. ECF 

Nos. 31-32. Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court appointing counsel to represent him in the 

instant matter. Id. at 1. In support, Plaintiff argues that he is (1) unable to afford counsel, 

unable to speak, read, or write in English, (3) only able to access the prison law library once a 

week and is prevented from going at the same time as his translator, (4) only able to submit 

filings in this matter with the assistance of another inmate, (5) uneducated in the law, and (6) 

unable to access legal materials in Spanish or Spanish speaking inmate clerks in the library. Id. 

at 1-2. In further support, Plaintiff argues that appointment of counsel is necessary to retain 

medical experts, present evidence, and cross examine witnesses. Id. at 2. Plaintiff states that 

Case 3:16-cv-00084-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 08/08/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

16cv84-JLS(BLM) 

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

he has attempted to find an attorney to represent him, but that none of them have been willing 

to take his case. Id. Finally, Plaintiff states that the inmate who has been assisting him has 

been threatened by a correctional officer due to his involvement in this matter and as a result, 

is not willing to continue assisting Plaintiff in this matter. Id. at 3-10. 

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. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 

452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts are granted discretion 

to appoint counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. 

Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). A finding of exceptional circumstances 

demands at least “an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an 

evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal 

issues involved.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Thus far, Plaintiff has drafted and submitted several pleadings and motions without the 

assistance of counsel. See Docket. In addition to the instant motion, he has submitted a 

complaint (ECF No. 1), a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), a previous motion 

for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3), a motion to strike his original exhibits in support of the 

complaint and replace them with updated exhibits (ECF No. 7), a motion for the Court to provide 

contact information and for Defendants to be served timely (ECF No. 10), a letter requesting 

blank USM-285 forms (ECF No. 12)1, a motion to attach additional documents to the complaint 

(ECF No. 13), a motion for additional time to oppose Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 

22), a second motion for additional time to oppose Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25), 

an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 28), and a request for leave to file a 

first amended complaint (ECF No. 30). From the Court’s review of these documents, it is clear 

that Plaintiff is able to articulate the claims of his case.2 

                                                      

1 The filing was ultimately rejected since Plaintiff had already been provided with the forms. 

ECF No. 12. 

2 Plaintiff's reliance on another inmate for assistance in drafting his pleadings [see ECF No. 32 

Case 3:16-cv-00084-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 08/08/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

16cv84-JLS(BLM) 

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 previously denied Plaintiff’s request for counsel [see ECF No. 4] and Plaintiff’s 

current request does not provide any new facts justifying such an extraordinary remedy. ECF 

No. 32. Further, Plaintiff does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that 

his case should be classified as an “exceptional circumstance[].” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103; 

see also Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. While as Plaintiff argues, it is likely true that that the 

appointment of counsel would assist him with discovery and trial issues such as the examination 

of witnesses, these factors do not warrant the finding of exceptional circumstances supporting 

an appointment of counsel. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir.1997), overruled 

on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc) (holding that the appellant “may well 

have fared better [with appointed counsel]—particularly in the realms of discovery and the 

securing of expert testimony—but this is not the test”); see also Peterson v. Anderson, 2009 WL 

4506542, at *3 (D. Mont. Dec.2, 2009) (citing Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331) (“Although Plaintiff 

contends he is not in a position to litigate this matter, pro se litigants are rarely in a position to 

research and investigate facts easily. This alone does not deem a case complex.”). “[A]ny pro 

se litigant certainly would be better served with the assistance of counsel.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 

1525; see also Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“[A] pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to 

investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”). But a plaintiff is only entitled to 

appointed counsel if he can show “that because of the complexity of the claims he [is] unable 

to articulate his positions.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525; see also Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“If all 

that was required to establish successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a 

demonstration of the need for development of further facts, practically all cases would involve 

complex legal issues.”). Plaintiff has not established that this case is “exceptional” or that the 

issues in it are particularly complex. 

Because Plaintiff has not alleged the requisite “exceptional circumstances” at this time, 

                                                      

at 3-9] does not alter this analysis. See, e.g., Montano v. Solomon, 2010 WL 4137476, at *7 

(E.D. Cal. Oct.19, 2010) (denying plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel where “plaintiff 

has adequately presented, albeit through another inmate, the salient factual allegations of this 

case ....”). 

Case 3:16-cv-00084-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 08/08/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

16cv84-JLS(BLM) 

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 DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. See Taa v. 

Chase Home Fin., 2012 WL 507430, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2012) (noting that plaintiffs' lack 

of legal training, limited English, and poverty do not constitute exceptional circumstances, as 

these are the types of difficulties many other litigants face in proceeding in pro se); see also 

Montano v. Solomon, 2010 WL 2403389, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2010) (stating that “[n]either 

indigence nor lack of facility in English qualifies as an exceptional circumstance in a prisoner civil 

rights case.”); Garces v. Degadeo, 2007 WL 1521078, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2007) (finding 

that “Plaintiff's inability to read or write in English does not constitute an exceptional 

circumstance.”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 8/8/2016 

Case 3:16-cv-00084-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 08/08/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4