Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03049/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03049-0/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

KENNETH BOOTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O DAVIS, DANIEL PARAMO, WARDEN,

C/O CORONA, JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 20,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 12cv3049 H (PCL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL (Doc. No. 2)

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. No. 2) Plaintiff

requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil action. The Constitution

provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case, however, unless an indigent litigant may lose

his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25

(1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts are granted discretion to appoint

counsel for indigent persons. This discretion may be exercised only under “exceptional circumstances.” 

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 plaintiff to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these

issues are dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting

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

1 12cv3049 H (PCL)

Case 3:12-cv-03049-H-PCL Document 3 Filed 12/27/12 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

In this case, Plaintiff alleges that he requires the assistance of counsel due to a mental disorder and

traumatic brain injury (Doc. No. 2). However, Plaintiff demonstrates a sufficient understanding of the

legal process to be an able litigant which is evidenced by his detailed complaint (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff

displays an adequate understanding of jurisdiction and venue, the parties involved, the causes of action

and demand for relief. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not attempted to demonstrate a likelihood of success

on the merits. Under these circumstances, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request without prejudice, as

neither the interests of justice nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this

time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

 Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: December 27, 2012 

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

cc: The Honorable Marilyn L. Huff

 All Counsel of Record

2 12cv3049 H (PCL)

Case 3:12-cv-03049-H-PCL Document 3 Filed 12/27/12 Page 2 of 2