Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05058/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05058-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LA’KEITH DESHAWN WELLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. G. BAPTISTA,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-05058-YGR (PR) 

ORDER DENYING SECOND REQUEST

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

stemming from a March 19, 2013 incident at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), where he was 

formerly housed. He alleges that Defendant PBSP Correctional Officer W. G. Baptista used 

excessive force against him. 

On February 2, 2015, the Court issued its Order of Service. Dkt. 9.

On June 30, 2015, the parties submitted a stipulation in which they informed the Court that 

they were interested in scheduling a settlement conference to resolve their disputes. Dkt. 27.

On July 9, 2015, the Court referred this action to the Honorable Nandor J. Vadas. Dkt. 31. 

The parties will be scheduled to appear before Magistrate Judge Vadas for settlement proceedings 

no later than October 9, 2015. Id. at 2.

Before the Court is Petitioner’s second request for appointment of counsel. Dkts. 24, 26. 

The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s initial request for the appointment of counsel on April 6, 

2015. Dkt. 16.

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may 

lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 

25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to 

counsel in section 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 

Case 4:14-cv-05058-YGR Document 33 Filed 07/29/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 

28 U.S.C. § 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 id. at 1525; 

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 section 1915. See id. 

The Court is unable to assess at this time whether exceptional circumstances exist which 

would warrant seeking volunteer counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. The proceedings are

still at an early stage and it is premature for the Court to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success 

on the merits. Moreover, Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims adequately pro se in light 

of the complexity of the issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 

1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s second request for appointment of counsel is 

DENIED without prejudice to renewing his request if this action is not resolved after the 

aforementioned settlement proceedings. Dkts. 24, 26.

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 24 and 26.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

July 29, 2015

Case 4:14-cv-05058-YGR Document 33 Filed 07/29/15 Page 2 of 2