Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00788/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00788-3/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

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

Michael Hopkins,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. Bustos et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 15cv788 JLS (PCL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECUSAL

(Docs. 48, 58)

Now before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docs. 48 and 58) and

motion for recusal (Doc. 58). 

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 Social Services, 452

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

appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion 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)).

1

Case 3:15-cv-00788-JLS-PCL Document 64 Filed 09/15/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

In his motions, Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to counsel because he is a mental health litigator.

(Doc. 48, at 2.) He argues that he is entitled to counsel because of his “EOP status” and his designation

as developmentally disabled. (Doc. 58, at 2.) 

Although Plaintiff may be disabled in some way, he does not appear to be incompetent to prosecute

his case as he has been able to articulate his claims to this Court both in writing and orally over the

telephone. (See Travalini v. People of California, 2006 WL 842435, at * 3 (E.D. Cal. March 28, 2006)

(“Although illiteracy may prohibit a defendant from understanding and appreciating written communications, it does not, standing alone, inhibit a defendant who has no history of mental retardation (or other

mental illnesses that affect a person’s faculties) from understanding verbal communications. The Court

agrees with precedent from other circuit courts that hold that illiteracy does not invariably equate with

legal incompetence.”) Moreover, at this stage in the litigation, the Court simply cannot make a finding

that Plaintiff’s claims have a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to warrant the appointment of

counsel. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for counsel without prejudice, as neither the

interests of justice nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time under the

circumstances laid out by Plaintiff in his motions. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987);

Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel are DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s motion for recusal of the magistrate judge is also DENIED. Section 455(a) of Title 28 of

the United States Code requires a federal judge to “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Plaintiff bases his motion for recusal on the fact that this

Court has failed to appoint him counsel. (Doc. 58.) Matters arising from judicial proceedings are not a

proper basis for recusal absent bias on the part of the judge. See Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540 (1994).

The judge is not biased against Plaintiff in any way. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 15, 2016

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

2

Case 3:15-cv-00788-JLS-PCL Document 64 Filed 09/15/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2