Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00235/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00235-1/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

11cv235

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO SOTO,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. GINES, et al.,

Defendants.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11-CV-235-LAB (JMA)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL [Doc. No. 28]

On October 27, 2011, Plaintiff Francisco Soto filed a motion for appointment of

counsel. Doc. No. 28. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v.

Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). District

courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to appoint counsel

for indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” See 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 on the merits and the ability of

the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

involved.’ Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together

before reaching a decision.’” Id. (citations omitted).

Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate the factual and legal

Case 3:11-cv-00235-LAB-JMA Document 32 Filed 12/19/11 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 11cv235

bases of his claim with sufficient clarity. The facts alleged in his First Amended

Complaint are not complex. Based on the information currently before the Court, it is

clear that Plaintiff has the competence necessary to pursue his case. Without more,

this Court cannot conclude that there are “exceptional circumstances” which would

warrant the appointment of counsel in Plaintiff’s case. Nor has Plaintiff submitted

anything which would suggest he is likely to succeed on the merits or that it would be in

the interests of justice for counsel to be appointed in his case.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

counsel without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 19, 2011

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00235-LAB-JMA Document 32 Filed 12/19/11 Page 2 of 2