Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01774/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01774-0/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

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 - 05cv1774

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT WILSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05cv1774 DMS (AJB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL

[Docket No. 16]

vs.

MEDICAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANT

IRVIN; JOHN DOE #1, UNKNOWN

NAMED C.D.C. CORRECTIONAL

OFFICER; JOHN DOE #2, UNKNOWN

NAMED C.D.C. PHYSICIAN; and JOHN

DOE #3, AS OF YET UNIDENTIFIED

CODEFENDANT,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a request for appointment of counsel to

assist him in serving his Complaint. 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). 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 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)).

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 17 Filed 01/23/08 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 - 05cv1774

Here, it appears Plaintiff has a sufficient grasp of his case, the legal issues involved, and is able

to adequately articulate the basis of his Complaint. Although Plaintiff is having difficulty effecting

service of process, he has not explained how counsel could assist with that effort, or how that provides

a legal basis for the appointment of counsel. Under these circumstances, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 23, 2008

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-MDD Document 17 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 2