Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02455/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02455-0/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

- 1 - 06cv2455 BEN (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY DARNELL ARTHUR,

CDC #C-33149

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2455 BEN (RBB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

vs.

R. TORRES et al.,

Defendants.

Larry Darnell Arthur, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at California State

Prison in Lancaster, California, and proceeding pro se, has submitted a civil action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that, while he was incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison,

prison officials used excessive force against him in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.

Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil action.

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless, however, an

indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts are

granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion may be exercised

only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

“A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success

Case 3:06-cv-02455-BEN-RBB Document 19 Filed 09/21/07 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 - 06cv2455 BEN (RBB)

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)).

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request, as neither the interests of justice nor

exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley,827 F.2d

622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

DATED: September 21, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

cc: All parties and respective counsel

Case 3:06-cv-02455-BEN-RBB Document 19 Filed 09/21/07 Page 2 of 2