Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00059/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00059-2/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

15cv59-BEN-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

TORRY BUCHANAN,

Plaintiff, 

v.

DR. A. GARIKAPARTHI, et al.,

Defendants. 

Case No.: 15cv59-BEN-MDD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR THE 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 44]

On May 28, 2017, Plaintiff moved for the appointment of counsel. (ECF 

No. 44). Plaintiff requests counsel be appointed to assist him because he is 

an indigent prisoner, Plaintiff is a layperson with “limited access to the law 

library and limited knowledge of the law,” and Plaintiff “does not have the 

experience of legal qualifications to confront testimony or to cross examine” 

Defendants’ expert witnesses or to present his own evidence. (Id. at 1-2). In 

support, Plaintiff attaches Defendant Garikaparthi’s expert witness 

designation and expert report. (Id. at 4-143). For the reasons stated herein, 

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

There is no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases. Lassiter v. 

Department of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). District courts have 

Case 3:15-cv-00059-BEN-MDD Document 45 Filed 06/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

15cv59-BEN-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

discretion to appoint counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant, but this 

discretion is rarely exercised and only under “exceptional circumstances.” 

Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). A 

finding of exceptional circumstances requires “an evaluation of the likelihood 

of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s 

ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved.’” Id. at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 

(9th Cir. 1986)).

Plaintiff has litigated this case for over two years without assistance of 

counsel. In that time, Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate his 

claims, his pleading survived the early screening process, and he participated 

in a Mandatory Settlement Conference before this Court on May 26, 2017. 

(See ECF Nos. 1, 3, 4, 13, 25, 42). Additionally, Plaintiff’s remaining claims 

are not particularly complex, and although sufficiently plead to survive 

screening, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the 

merits. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated “exceptional 

circumstances” and his motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-00059-BEN-MDD Document 45 Filed 06/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2