Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00327/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00327-2/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 11cv0327

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAWAN WILLIAMS, Civil No. 11cv327-JLS (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 6]

v.

W J PRICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 7,

2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. [Doc. No. 6.] In support of his request,

Plaintiff contends that the trial in this case will likely involve conflicting testimony and counsel will

better enable Plaintiff to present evidence and cross examine witnesses. For the reasons set forth below,

Plaintiff’s request 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 “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing

of exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Burns v.

County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 823 (9th Cir. 1989). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an

evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success 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.” Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017

Case 3:11-cv-00327-JLS-KSC Document 9 Filed 11/15/11 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 11cv0327

(quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The Court finds that there is neither a likelihood of success on the merits nor an inability on the

part of Plaintiff to articulate his claims. Under these circumstances, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

request for appointment of counsel, because it is not warranted by the interests of justice. LaMere v.

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 14, 2011

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00327-JLS-KSC Document 9 Filed 11/15/11 Page 2 of 2