Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02955/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02955-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN D. AGUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-02955 JSW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR A COURT

APPOINTED ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Benjamin D. Agustin moves the Court for appointment of counsel. Having

reviewed Plaintiff’s papers, the request is DENIED. Plaintiff is not an indigent litigant who

may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation and therefore has no right to counsel in

this case. See Lassiter v. Dept of Soc. Servs, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nor are there funds

available to the Court to compensate appointed counsel.

In civil cases that are not brought under Title VII, the district court may appoint counsel

for litigants proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Under this statute,

the court cannot require counsel to represent such litigants, but may request such representation

on a pro bono basis. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 303-06 (1989). Thus,

the Court will consider a request for appointment of counsel only if the plaintiff establishes that

he cannot afford an attorney. Additionally, the Court may appoint counsel under § 1915(e) only

under “exceptional circumstances.” See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997)

(citing Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980)). 

Case 3:05-cv-02955-JSW Document 14 Filed 12/14/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 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

Agustin has not made a sufficient showing with respect to the above articulated factors. 

Agustin has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of this Court, that he has investigated the

possibility of retaining pro bono counsel to handle his case. Without making any endorsement

in this regard, Plaintiff is advised that the Alameda County Bar Association operates a lawyer

referral service that may be helpful in securing pro bono counsel. 

In addition, Agustin has not made a sufficient showing of merit in his complaint to

justify a search by the Court for volunteer counsel willing to accept an appointment. 

Accordingly, Agustin’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02955-JSW Document 14 Filed 12/14/05 Page 2 of 2