Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-03700/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-03700-3/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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JACOB S. SILVERMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

IVERS, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 17-03700 BLF (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL 

 (Docket No. 34) 

Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at the Humboldt County Correctional Facility (“HCCF”).1

 

On September 24, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 33.) Plaintiff 

has filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel because “a highly technical eye is 

required” to litigate his claims. (Docket No. 34 at 1.) 

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant 

may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social 

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds 

 

1

 The matter was reassigned to this Court on February 13, 2018. (See Docket Nos. 13, 14.)

Case 5:17-cv-03700-BLF Document 37 Filed 10/19/18 Page 1 of 2
Order Denying Motion for Court Appointed Counsel 

P:\PRO-SE\BLF\CR.17\03700Silverman_deny-atty.docx 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The decision to request counsel 

to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial 

court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 

1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED for lack of 

exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 

1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 

This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte appointment of counsel at a 

future date should the circumstances of this case warrant such appointment. 

This order terminates Docket No. 34. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:17-cv-03700-BLF Document 37 Filed 10/19/18 Page 2 of 2