Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00469/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00469-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

17cv469-JLS-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WILSON,

Plaintiff, 

v.

CORPORAL GARDINER, et al.,

Defendant. 

Case No.: 17cv469-JLS-MDD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)

[ECF No. 10]

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

Complaint (ECF No. 1) filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and currently 

incarcerated at the California Medical Facility, has submitted a motion in 

which he requests that the Court appoint counsel for him pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). (ECF No. 10).

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

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

Thus, federal courts do not have the authority “to make coercive 

appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 

296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 

F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995).

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 

Case 3:17-cv-00469-JLS-MDD Document 14 Filed 09/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv469-JLS-MDD

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

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.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 

F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Here, Plaintiff supports his Motion by stating that his imprisonment 

will limit his ability to pursue his claims, that he is enrolled in an outpatient 

mental health program, has limited access to the law library. (ECF No. 10 at 

1). However, it appears that Plaintiff has a sufficient grasp of his case, the 

legal issues involved, and is able to adequately articulate the basis of his 

claims. In fact, Plaintiff’s pro se pleading has survived the initial screening 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), Plaintiff has effected 

service on all defendants, and Plaintiff was able to file a motion requesting 

an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 

(ECF No. 12).

Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to show the “exceptional 

circumstances” required for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(1) and therefore DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: September 14, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00469-JLS-MDD Document 14 Filed 09/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2