Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00482/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00482-1/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

3:13-cv-00482-CAB-MDD

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

ROBIN A. DUNN,

CDCR # AE-9826,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PETER MELKONIAN,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:13-cv-00482-CAB-MDD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR AND APPOINTING 

PRO BONO COUNSEL PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) AND 

S.D. Cal. Gen. Order 596 

[ECF No. 130]

ROBIN A. DUNN (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding in pro se and currently 

incarcerated at Ironwood State Prison in Blythe, California, was granted leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) on July 18, 2013, in this civil rights 

action which he has since been prosecuting on his own behalf pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (ECF No. 5). 

I. Procedural History

On March 25, 2015, the Court denied Defendant Melkonian’s Motion to Dismiss 

and granted Plaintiff additional time in which to effect proper service pursuant to FED. R.

CIV. P. 4 (ECF No. 38). Melkonian was eventually served, and filed his Answer on 

January 28, 2016 (ECF No. 57). After the completion of discovery, neither party moved 

for summary judgment.

Case 3:13-cv-00482-CAB-MDD Document 132 Filed 12/30/16 Page 1 of 3
2

3:13-cv-00482-CAB-MDD

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

On November 22, 2016, the Court set a pretrial conference for December 16, 2016 

(ECF No. 128). Plaintiff responded by filing a Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 

128) in which to file a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 130). On December 

6, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time and vacated all pretrial dates, 

including the pre-trial conference previously set for December 16, 2016, pending 

resolution of Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 131). 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

While there is no right to counsel in a civil action, a court may under “exceptional 

circumstances” exercise its discretion and “request an attorney to represent any person 

unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 

(9th Cir. 2009). The court must consider both “‘the likelihood of success on the merits as 

well as the ability of the [Plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 

954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 

On January July 18, 2013, again on February 19, 2016, Plaintiff’s previous 

motions for appointment of counsel were denied, based on findings that he, at least at 

those stages of the proceedings, had failed to show the “exceptional circumstances” 

necessary to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (ECF No. 5 at 3, 7; ECF No. 62 at 1-2). See

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

In light of Plaintiff’s most recent Motion and the impending trial, the Court has 

elected to exercise its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), and has requested

volunteer pro bono counsel for purposes of representing Plaintiff for purposes of trial and 

any further proceedings before the Court under the provisions of this Court’s “Plan for 

the Representation of Pro Bono Litigation in Civil Case filed in the Southern District of 

California,” and General Order 596. 

The Pro Bono Plan specifically provides for appointment of pro bono counsel “as a 

matter of course for purposes of trial in each prisoner civil rights case where summary 

judgment has been denied.” See S.D. CAL. GEN. ORDER 596. In this case, Plaintiff is an 

Case 3:13-cv-00482-CAB-MDD Document 132 Filed 12/30/16 Page 2 of 3
3

3:13-cv-00482-CAB-MDD

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

indigent prisoner, and his claims require resolution by trial, just as they would if 

summary judgment had been denied. Therefore, the Court has concluded that the ends of 

justice would be served by the appointment of pro bono counsel under circumstances, and 

has identified a random volunteer on the Court’s Pro Bono Panel who has graciously 

agreed to represent Plaintiff pro bono during the course of all further proceedings held 

before this Court. See S.D. CAL. GEN. ORDER 596.

III. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel 

(ECF No. 130) and APPOINTS Sandra Payne Hagood, Esq., SBN 283366, of the Law 

Office of Sandra Payne Hagood, 420 Vincente Way, La Jolla, California, 92037, as Pro 

Bono Counsel for Plaintiff. 

Pursuant to S.D. CAL. CIVLR 83.3.f.2, Pro Bono Counsel must file, within fourteen 

(14) days of this Order, if possible, and in light of Plaintiff’s incarceration, a formal 

written Notice of Substitution of Attorney signed by both Plaintiff and his newly 

appointed counsel. Such substitution will be considered approved by the Court upon its 

filing, and Pro Bono Counsel will thereafter be considered attorney of record for Plaintiff 

for all purposes during further proceedings before this Court, in this matter only, and at 

the Court’s specific request. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 83.3.f.1, 2. Once the substitution is 

filed, the Court will reset the pretrial and trial dates.

The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve Ms. Hagood with a 

copy of this Order at the address listed above upon filing. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 83.3.f.2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2016

Case 3:13-cv-00482-CAB-MDD Document 132 Filed 12/30/16 Page 3 of 3