Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03502/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03502-0/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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Bennett502atty 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO K. BENNETT,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3502 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR

APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE 

(Docket Nos. 2, 9)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pelican Bay State Prison officials. Plaintiff has filed two

motions for appointment of counsel. The Court will DENY Plaintiff’s motions for

appointment of counsel (docket nos. 2, 9) without prejudice. The Court will review

Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on February 13, 2006, in a separate written order. 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff has filed two motions for appointment of counsel. However, there is no

constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452

U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a district court only the power to

“request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1). This does not give the courts the power to make “coercive appointments of

Case 5:05-cv-03502-JF Document 11 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Bennett502atty 2

counsel.” Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). 

The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 only in

“exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of both

(1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of

these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel

under § 1915. See id. Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact that the pro se litigant

would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily qualify the issues

involved as complex. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (where plaintiff’s pursuit of discovery

was comprehensive and focused and his papers were generally articulate and organized,

district court did not abuse discretion in denying request for counsel). Because the Court

has not reviewed the merits of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on February 13, 2006, 

the Court concludes that appointment of counsel is not necessary at this time. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (docket nos. 2, 9) are

DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/20/06 

 JEREMY FOGEL 

 United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03502-JF Document 11 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Bennett502atty 3

This is to certify that on , a copy of this ruling

was mailed to the following:

Mario K. Bennett

V-23447

Pelican Bay State Prison

P.O. Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95531-7500

Case 5:05-cv-03502-JF Document 11 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 3