Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02261/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02261-3/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 

13cv2261-BTM (DHB) 

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 

KYLE AVERY 

CDCR #E-67897, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

D. PARAMO, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 13cv2261-BTM (DHB) 

*Consolidated with Civil Case No. 

13cv3169-BTM (DHB) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL 

[ECF No. 63] 

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting appointment of counsel. (ECF 

No. 63.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

“There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.” Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 

1353 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 

1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.”) 

(citation omitted). Thus, federal courts do not have the authority “to make coercive 

appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States Dist. Ct., 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). 

Districts 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 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-BTM-DHB Document 64 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

13cv2261-BTM (DHB) 

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

circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th 

Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. “A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the 

plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least 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.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting 

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 

935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Here, Plaintiff asserts: (a) he is unable to afford retained counsel; (b) the issues in 

this case are complex; (c) he has a limited knowledge of the law; (d) the case may impact 

unrepresented inmates as a result of the relief Plaintiff seeks yet he is unqualified to 

represent those inmates who may be impacted by this action; and (e) he does not have the 

discovery resources to defend against and obtain expert witnesses. (ECF No. 63 at 1:16-

23.) However, these arguments do not establish that Plaintiff’s situation is any different 

than the typical state prisoner pursuing a civil rights lawsuit in federal court, let alone that 

his situation is exceptional. Plaintiff has sufficiently represented himself to date. Plaintiff 

has not shown how his imprisonment prevents him from sufficiently prosecuting his 

lawsuit. Rather, Plaintiff’s numerous filings demonstrate he has a good grasp of his case 

and the legal issues involved. Moreover, his opposition to Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment for failure to exhaust demonstrates he has access to legal authorities. 

(See ECF No. 34.) Further, the Court does not find the issues in this case so complex to 

warrant appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, 

the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown the “exceptional circumstances” required for 

appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Therefore, the Court DENIES

without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 11, 2016 

DAVID H. BARTICK 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:13-cv-02261-BTM-DHB Document 64 Filed 03/11/16 Page 2 of 2