Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00042/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00042-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 151
Nature of Suit: Overpayments under the Medicare Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 - 10cv0042

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUDY DUGAN; and DAVID CRAFT,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10cv0042 JM(WMC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

vs. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA; and

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Judy Dugan and David Craft move for appointment of counsel. While the

application represents that this an employment action, the court notes that the complaint alleges a

single claim for medical malpractice. (Complaint, Docket No. 1). The Constitution provides no right

to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25

(1981). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, district courts are granted discretion to appoint

counsel for indigent persons 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 or her] 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)).

Here, it appears that Plaintiffs have a sufficient grasp of their case, the legal issues involved,

and are able to adequately articulate the basis for their claims. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for

Case 3:10-cv-00042-JM-WMC Document 6 Filed 04/15/10 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

- 2 - 10cv0042

appointment of counsel is denied because it is not warranted by the interests of justice. LaMere v.

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). 

In sum, the motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 15, 2010

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00042-JM-WMC Document 6 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 2