Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01343/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01343-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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 - 07cv1343-JLS (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISIDRO ROMAN, Civil No. 07cv1343-JLS (POR)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Document No. 94]

v.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendant.

On October 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 94.) 

Plaintiff contends his “incarceration renders him unable to conduct timely and meaningful

investigation,” and his “general and legal education renders him unable to present his case.” (Id.) 

Further, Plaintiff contends the case is complex and that “[a]n attorney would help plaintiff apply the

law properly in briefs and before the court.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also contends English is his second

language. (Id. at 3.) 

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

Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Thus, federal courts do

not have the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States

District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54

F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Districts courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to “request”

that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. See

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823

Case 3:07-cv-01343-JLS-DHB Document 98 Filed 11/18/10 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 - 07cv1343-JLS (POR)

(9th Cir. 1989). “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)).

Here, Plaintiff asserts he is unable to conduct meaningful investigations, he has no legal

education, the issues are complex, and, finally, English is his second language. It appears that

Plaintiff has a sufficient grasp of his case, the legal issues involved, and is able to adequately

articulate the basis of his claims. First, Plaintiff’s pro se pleading survived the initial screening

provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Second, the Court’s docket reflects that

Plaintiff effected service of his Complaint and summons upon Defendants via the U.S. Marshal. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Further, the docket reflects Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint partially

survived a Motion to Dismiss. 

Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not

shown the “exceptional circumstances” required for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1) and therefore DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 18, 2010

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: The Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

all parties

Case 3:07-cv-01343-JLS-DHB Document 98 Filed 11/18/10 Page 2 of 2