Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02392/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02392-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1339 Postal matters

---

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

3:18-cv-02392-AJB-NLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAFAEL DE LIMA MARQUES,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL

SERVICE,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02392-AJB-NLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 2]

Before the Court is plaintiff Rafael De Lima Marques’s (“Plaintiff”) motion 

for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and has filed 

a civil complaint relating to the damage of an item he shipped from San Diego, 

California, to Cincinnati, Ohio. See ECF No. 32.

I. BACKGROUND

Although Plaintiff failed to fill out the section of his complaint entitled, 

“Statement of Claim,” the Court will liberally construe the pleading and look to the 

exhibits provided to decipher the claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) (“A copy of a 

written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all 

purposes.”); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(pro se pleadings are liberally construed). In the demand letter attached to the 

Case 3:18-cv-02392-AJB-NLS Document 4 Filed 11/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

3:18-cv-02392-AJB-NLS

complaint, which previously had been sent to the United States Postal Service’s 

(“Defendant”) legal department, Plaintiff contends that on July 20, 2018, he sent a 

$3,310.38 rig1 via Defendant, for which he purchased insurance and tracking for 

$144.07. ECF No. 1-2 at 31. Plaintiff claims the rig arrived to its destination 

damaged, and sought reimbursement. Id. Plaintiff’s initial formal grievance was 

denied; he then appealed said denial to the intermediate level of administrative 

appeal and the final level of appeal, both of which upheld the initial decision to deny 

his claim. Id. at 40-41, 43. This action follows, wherein the Plaintiff requests “the 

court to order the defendant to reimburse me for the damaged item.” Id. at 3.

II. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff asks this Court to appoint counsel from the Court’s pro bono panel. 

ECF No. 2. However, he left blank the section of the request form entitled, “I need 

appointed counsel to assist me because (describe below)[.]” Id. at 3. Elsewhere in 

the motion Plaintiff states that he is not presently employed, has $500 in bank 

accounts, owes $8,000 on his car, and pays $1,350 in living expenses.2 Id. at 4-6. 

Other than having contacted one attorney in October by phone (Id. at 2), Plaintiff 

provides no reasoning other than his financial situation as to why he is entitled to 

appointed counsel.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. 

Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). In 

pro se and in forma pauperis3 proceedings, district courts do not have the authority 

 

1 Here, the Court infers from the Plaintiff’s attachments of computer parts receipts that the “rig” 

at issue refers to a computer system built to mine crypto-currency. See ECF No. 1-2 at 14-30.

2 Which includes rent, school, utilities, and his phone bill. ECF No. 2 at 6.

3

In his request for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff states that he has “been granted, or h[as] 

applied for, permission to proceed in forma pauperis.” ECF No. 2 at 1. However, no such motion 

has been filed with this Court, and the docket reflects Plaintiff paid the filing fee on the date he 

filed his complaint. ECF No. 1-3.

Case 3:18-cv-02392-AJB-NLS Document 4 Filed 11/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

3

3:18-cv-02392-AJB-NLS

“to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States District 

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). But, they do have discretion to request that an 

attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional 

circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 

1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Finding exceptional circumstances entails “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.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Wilborn 

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

B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel does not address his likelihood 

of success on the merits, nor does it make any argument other than financial need. 

Bald assertions that claims are meritorious without any supporting evidence fail to 

satisfy the first factor of the Wilborn test. Bailey v. Lawford, 835 F. Supp. 550, 552 

(S.D. Cal. 1993) (concluding that the likelihood of success was not shown where the 

plaintiff did not present any evidence other than his own assertions to support his 

claims). More is required to demonstrate the likelihood of success. Without any 

evidence supporting a likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiff has not satisfied 

the first Wilborn factor. 

C. Plaintiff’s Ability to Articulate His Claims

Where a pro se civil rights plaintiff shows he has a good grasp of basic 

litigation procedure and has been able to adequately articulate his claims, he does 

not demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant appointing counsel. See 

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court has reviewed 

Plaintiff’s complaint, which is almost completely blank but attaches the demand 

Case 3:18-cv-02392-AJB-NLS Document 4 Filed 11/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

4

3:18-cv-02392-AJB-NLS

letter submitted to Defendant. Reviewing Plaintiff’s demand letter, the Court 

understands Plaintiff’s claims and the relief sought, and finds that the issues he 

raises are not complex. His demand letter is articulate, organized, and makes an 

argument for breach of contract. See ECF No. 1-2 at 31-32; see also Palmer, 560 

F.3d at 970 (plaintiff did not satisfy exceptional circumstances, in part because he 

was “organized, made clear points, and presented the evidence effectively”.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff is sufficiently able to articulate his claims pro 

se given the straightforward nature of the issue involved, leaving the second Wilborn 

factor unsatisfied. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court thus does not find the “exceptional 

circumstances” required for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-02392-AJB-NLS Document 4 Filed 11/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4