Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01734/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01734-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAY G. KIMPEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 08CV1734-LAB(JMA)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL [Doc. No. 69]

On June 7, 2012, nunc pro tunc May 23, 2012, Plaintiff Jay G. Kimpel, who is

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a), filed a motion for appointment of counsel. [Doc. No. 69.] 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

11cv0012-BTM(JMA)

Case 3:08-cv-01734-LAB-JMA Document 88 Filed 08/24/12 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

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

Here, the facts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint are not complex and

Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate the factual and legal bases of his claim

with sufficient clarity and to litigate his claim on his own behalf. 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: August 24, 2012

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

2 11cv0012-BTM(JMA)

Case 3:08-cv-01734-LAB-JMA Document 88 Filed 08/24/12 Page 2 of 2