Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02446/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02446-0/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

15-cv-2446-MMA-AGS

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

Jerry David AGUILAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

Darryl BATES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15-cv-2446-MMA-AGS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR COUNSEL

(ECF No. 47)

Pro se plaintiff Jerry Aguilar, who is incarcerated, moves for appointed counsel on 

the ground that the “issues are complex and require counsel to investigate” and because he 

“is not aware of all the court[’]s time frame ordered.” (ECF No. 47, at 1.)

“Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560

F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). But the court “may” appoint counsel for 

an indigent civil litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), upon a showing of “exceptional 

circumstances.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation omitted). “When determining whether 

‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the 

merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id. (citation omitted).

Although Aguilar argues that his case is complex, it appears to be relatively 

straightforward. He alleges a single claim: that prison officials were deliberately indifferent 

Case 3:15-cv-02446-MMA-AGS Document 52 Filed 09/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

15-cv-2446-MMA-AGS

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

to his seriously injured ankle. (ECF No. 19, at 16.) And Aguilar has thus far shown that he 

is capable of litigating this claim on his own. In his 18-page amended complaint, Aguilar 

set forth in a clear and logical manner not only the supporting facts, but also relevant 

Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit caselaw. (Id. at 1-18.) He also attached 150 pages of 

exhibits to that amended complaint, which suggests he has already obtained a wealth of 

relevant evidence without the aid of an attorney. (See id. at 19-168.)

Aguilar also protests that he is unaware of “the court[’]s time frame ordered,” (ECF 

No. 47, at 1), but the only then-pending deadline was the Court’s order that the parties file 

a Joint Discovery Plan by September 7, 2017. (ECF No. 43, at 1.) Aguilar timely filed a 

motion to extend that deadline, which the Court is granting in a contemporaneous order. 

Aguilar has thus far complied with all scheduled court deadlines, and this does not 

constitute a basis for appointed counsel either.

As Aguilar has not shown exceptional circumstances, his motion for appointed 

counsel is DENIED.

Dated: September 21, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-02446-MMA-AGS Document 52 Filed 09/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2